Plenary

We'll move on to item 2.

Questions to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs. The first question is from John Griffiths.

Thank you for the question, John. The Gwent levels are nationally important for biodiversity. The Welsh Government is committed to ensuring that our SSSIs are better protected and managed for the future. We will shortly be consulting on planning guidance for the Gwent levels to ensure that the right development is in the right place and to avoid unacceptable biodiversity impacts.

Thank you for that. Sites of special scientific interest cover just 12 per cent of Wales and are, of course, designated because of their national importance for wildlife, habitats and geology. The Gwent levels are one of the most extensive areas of reclaimed wet pasture in Great Britain, and support some 43 nationally rare or notable species. The historic reens are rich in plant life and the aquatic invertebrate fauna is exceptionally diverse. This is a fragile and highly managed landscape where small changes can have cumulative impacts, and failure to protect against the risks do, unfortunately, often result in irreversible biodiversity loss and ultimately the degradation of the SSI designation itself.

Under 'Planning Policy Wales', development on land within or adjacent to SSSIs must not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, including alongside other developments. But despite this policy framework, we are seeing widely differing interpretations of SSSI protections by developers and by planning inspectors. Given these inconsistent interpretations and the risk that they pose, I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, as a matter of urgency and in the interests of all concerned, whether you might consider issuing formal clarification or additional guidance over the key provisions of chapter 6 of 'Planning Policy Wales' in terms of this vital SSSI protection.

Thank you, John. I think I can give you some assurance. But, first of all, can I just thank you for your relentless commitment to the Gwent levels and also your leadership of the Gwent levels working group since 2020? You have been daily, weekly, yearly, incessantly, a champion for the Gwent levels, speaking out for all those organisations that are so concerned with the biodiversity and the environmental stewardship of the Gwent levels.

Now, planning policy, of course, as you will understand, John, is the responsibility of my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning, but I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will also have heard his words as well. 'Planning Policy Wales' is clear that development that is not for the management of the SSSI is unacceptable. As a matter of principle in SSSIs, SSSIs must be excluded from site searches undertaken by developers and reasonable alternatives to such locations must be demonstrated, and this element of policy must be applied by decision makers. It is not acceptable to ignore poor site location choices where these cannot be justified in policy terms.

Just as a word of reassurance to you, John, the strategic guidance being produced for the Gwent levels will further reiterate the clear line for protecting SSSIs contained in 'Planning Policy Wales'.

I've known John Griffiths since 1999, and I doubt very much he is rude enough to walk out midway through your answer to him. [Laughter.] Oh, he's back, so he must have pressed a button inadvertently there. I'm sure he'll want to apologise for that at some point, and he's doing it as we speak, probably. Peter Fox next.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, you would have obviously been engaging with the UK Government regarding protection for the Gwent levels, SSSIs, but communities in Monmouthshire, Torfaen and Newport are facing very similar pressures from large-scale solar applications, as John Griffiths has talked about several times within the Gwent levels. Indeed, there is a proposed large 300-acre site coming to a village called Ponthir in our constituency. Now, local residents are seeing proposals that raise serious concerns about the loss of wildlife, the impact on farmland and much more. Many think the environmental rules the Welsh Government always refer to would apply, but they don't appear to be keeping pace with the scale of these applications. The Welsh Government are seemingly set on sacrificing one set of environmental principles in the pursuit of another, which makes no sense.

Given the Welsh Government's responsibilities, what assurances can you provide to the people in my constituency and further afield that protection for environmentally valuable sites will not fall through the cracks? Crucially, in the discussions you've had with the UK Government around the Gwent levels, have you raised this wider principle that while the transition to renewable energy is accepted, it cannot come at any cost, especially with the careless disposal of prime rural land?

Thank you, Peter. You'll understand I am not able to comment on any live applications or individual developments, but, indeed, we do engage with this with the UK Government as well, because there is a devolved piece and a reserved piece here within consenting. But just to be crystal clear: impact on SSSIs are considered as part of the UK nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting system through the environmental impact assessment process. The Secretary of State should take into account section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and thereby seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity and, in so doing, promote the resilience of ecosystems. Additionally, by the way, Peter, local authorities and NRW are also identified in that process as statutory consultees, and they have an opportunity to make representations then to any examining authority, to ensure that both planning at a national and a local scale, and any environmental concerns, are considered as part of the determination of any application. Just finally, under both the NSIP process and the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 process, the applicant is required to consult with people and organisations in the area, and they have to create detailed documents about the impact that the project could have on the environment.

I just wanted to add one thing out of interest to Peter and to other Members concerning the Gwent levels, but, generally, this approach to planning: I'll be attending the Inter-ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meeting tomorrow. One of the aspects of that meeting is a deep-dive on biodiversity. This will provide an opportunity to discuss with Ministers across the UK how we can then accelerate action to improve the resilience of ecosystems like the Gwent levels. So, I'm looking forward to that discussion.

I'd like to echo and align myself with what John said in his supplementary question. The SSSI area must be protected. In principle, I strongly support renewable energy and it's an important component of combating the climate crisis, but, as Mike Webb of Gwent Wildlife Trust has said, you can't destroy the environment to save the environment. I echo the calls to issue formal clarification and guidance over SSSI protections, with a view to this legislation being applied to its full power to offer more protection to these unique habitats. But what is to happen when onshore projects are placed just over the threshold of 350 MW for being determined by a Welsh authority? Well, as with many things, Westminster will have the final word. Like me, do you find this totally unacceptable and, quite frankly, condescending? What dialogue are you having with your party colleagues in Westminster to ensure that final decisions about Welsh energy projects are determined in Wales?

Llywydd, I don't want to repeat—not out of discourtesy to the Member, but—the points that I made in the previous answer to Peter Fox on the engagement we have in the UK Government, but also the context in which this is set of statutory consultees, referral to our duties here within Wales as well, and the protection of SSSIs as well. Indeed, the Gwent levels is identified as one of nine designated national natural resource areas by policy 9 of 'Future Wales' too.

But there are other things we can do in working with the community, I have to say as well, as well as engaging with the UK Government. We were very pleased, Pred, to agree funding for the RSPB-led Living Levels partnership project, which provides funding for the vital work of that project to continue. But we've also match-funded the development work needed for the Gwent Wildlife Trust to take forward a community asset transfer of Welsh Government-owned farmland on the Gwent levels. Why is this important? Because this is a chance to contribute towards the effective management of those SSSIs on the Gwent levels. So, I'm pleased we've had this discussion today. We have engagement with the UK Government. It's also what we do within our planning context here in Wales as well.

Diolch, Cefin. We continue to implement the community food strategy by allocating grant funding to local food partnerships right across Wales. All local authorities now have a local food partnership in place. The core community food strategy ministerial advisory group overseeing delivery held its first meeting in December, and will support co-ordination now of community-led initiatives.

Thank you very much. In my view, the Government's community food strategy recognises, of course, the role of food enterprises, but it fails to address the change that's required in Wales sufficiently. Now, despite producing high-quality food, there are too many people in Wales who still have difficulty in accessing nutritious and affordable food, being very reliant on imports from abroad. This is particularly true in rural areas, where low income and long travel distances make healthy food harder to access. The current strategy doesn't adequately cover affordability and promoting local produce, because research by the Countryside Alliance shows that much of the chicken served in schools in Wales comes from Thailand, rather than our encouraging farmers in Wales to produce that kind of chicken. So, do you agree that the community food strategy doesn't go far enough and that we need something more comprehensive for Wales?

The community food strategy, I think, is powerful and wide ranging, and very deep and impactful as well. But, just to say, on the food poverty issue, just to remind colleagues, with the support of the Senedd, the Welsh Government has allocated over £29 million since 2019 to support community food organisations to tackle food insecurity and to provide a wider range of services, helping individuals and households maximise their income and build that resilience. It's over £4 million this last year alone, by the way, on that.

But, in terms of the local food partnerships, I said that it was now in all 22 local food partnerships. They've all been awarded funding. What this includes, by the way, is things such as the trialling of farmers' markets and local veg box schemes, connecting communities to farmers and local food production through farm visits and events, skills development, cooking classes, engagement with campaigns that embed grass-roots community voices and organisations in local food charters and strategies, so joining up the dots on a local basis to build that food resilience.

We've made up to just short of £0.25 million available for local food partnerships to work together on larger projects with a shared interest. For example, Bwyd Powys is leading a project covering mid and west Wales, including four local food partnerships. It's a very pioneering food resilience approach. They've started on the activities now to address this challenge on the ground. So, I think, building on what we've already done on food poverty and resilience, the local food partnerships will take us a lot further, and the more mature food partnerships will do that collaborative space, where they bring organisations together.

In terms of the use of imported foodstuffs, I agree with you—the approach we are going with in Welsh Government, both through procurement and working with the supply chain, is to get more and more of our own produce onto those plates and tables; you're absolutely right. But it's not an overnight fix. But I would encourage all those procurement officers, local authorities, public bodies and whatever to look more at using our own fresh, nutritious produce from within Wales.

Firstly, can I pay tribute to PLANED and the fantastic work that they've done with the Pembrokeshire local food partnership over the last few years? I've had the honour of cutting the ribbon at two of their community vending machines in Llanteg and in Whitland. I'd also pay tribute at this point to Iwan Thomas, the outgoing CEO of PLANED, who's been with the organisation for seven years.

This is a discussion we've had previously, before, when Peter Fox was bringing through this place his food Bill. The second biggest advocate for Peter's food Bill, other than Peter himself, was you, Cabinet Secretary, when you were a backbencher. So, what work have you done from Peter Fox's food Bill? Now that you're in a position of power within the Government, what did you learn during the process of Peter Fox's food Bill and what have you taken forward? And what have you changed within the Welsh Government because of it?

I'll give you just one example, because I am indeed a supporter of many of the elements within Peter's proposal. We've actually brought it forward in 'Food Matters', the overarching food strategy, and also within the community food strategy itself. But let me just give you one example, because I don't have loads of time, Llywydd. Let's turn to public procurement. The Welsh Veg in Schools project, led by Food Sense Wales, has demonstrated already that a small increase in school meal budgets unlocks significant local economic impact and jobs and environmental gain. We've had now over 200,000, Sam, organic Welsh vegetable portions delivered to schools in seven local authorities. And what does that do? It supports our local Welsh growers. It improves child nutrition through having fresh, locally sourced food. It's resulted in a 20 per cent increase in land use to grow vegetables in Wales—a 20 per cent increase—while the rest of the UK, by the way, has seen a decline in the land allocated for that. In that procurement space, we've improved access to public sector markets for 52 Welsh food businesses through the food accreditation grant scheme run by Mentera. We've created, through that, over 1,200 jobs, and enabled long-term growth and sustainability for those businesses. And the work that we've done, which I know you've seen as well, Sam, working with the supply chain—people like Castell Howell and Harlech Foodservice—on that procurement piece, where they work with local growers and producers to increase the amount of supply of Welsh products to schools and hospitals and others—. Castell Howell has reported, now, spend on Welsh food increasing by nearly 175 per cent from 2021 to 2024. Harlech Foodservice has reported an increase in that same period of 90 per cent for Welsh meat, 120 per cent for Welsh milk, and nearly 65 per cent for Welsh school drinks. So, what are we doing? I could go on, but there's just one aspect in procurement; we are making a transformative change to our local food system.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. Recently, I was shocked to learn—and you agreed this; you confirmed it—that there are no official measurements being taken on a regular basis of the levels of plastic pollution in our Welsh waters. We've seen plastic disks from water treatment works released into the sea in Swansea; plastic making up 80 per cent of litter on our beaches; microplastics picked up in our species and fish and birds in the River Taff. This pollution is serious, with plastics making it into our food supply, meaning we are ingesting this.

There are currently 100 times more microplastics now in the UK coastline over the last 10 years, with seagulls being found to have ingested glitter. Animals are mistaking these plastics for food, yet the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales have continuously been focused on the pollution of our waters by farmers, in the water supply. And we know that that is not the case. However, as shown through the leaks from water treatment works, plastics are being introduced through numerous sources. Will the Cabinet Secretary commit to working with NRW to ensure that the levels of plastic pollution in our waters are measured, recorded and published?

Yes, well, just to contradict one thing you say, we don't always—. You have a fixation with farmers and agricultural pollution, because you keep bringing it up regularly. What we focus on is all sources of pollution in our rivers, and that could be development pollution, it could be the water companies—as with our launch, this week, of the clean water Green Paper—but it can also be agricultural pollution, where we need to fix that as well, and it has to be all together. So, I don't share your fixation on one source of pollution. You're always going on about agricultural pollution; we need to focus on all of them.

Now, plastic pollution is indeed a—. There is a growing awareness of this. This is why Welsh Government puts so much funding not only into things such as our unique scheme of collecting plastics from the fisheries fleet—working with skippers, collecting it on the dockside and then actually recycling it—but the work we do, actually, in promoting the work of local volunteers and supporting the work of local volunteers—we've all been on them, the litter picks on the lines—and also the research that NRW is doing alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and European counterparts into microplastics.

Several Members have mentioned this on recent occasions. We need to build the evidence base and do the analysis on microplastics specifically, because we are finding them at the bottom of the Mariana Trench and on the top of the mountains, and also within not just our ecosystems, but our bodily systems as well. So, we share your passion to tackle this issue and we need to do it in every possible way.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I do think that it was a little bit rich for you to say that after the way you've penalised our farmers with nitrate vulnerable zones and the heavy-handed approach you took there.

Now, yesterday, as you've just said, you published the Green Paper, 'Shaping the Future of Water Governance in Wales'. We've seen that £56 million has already been spent to tackle water quality since 2022, the Cunliffe review has 88 recommendations, and there have been 155 pollution incidents by Dŵr Cymru in 2024, with Dŵr Cymru being fined £1.35 million for pleading guilty to over 800 breaches of its sewage discharge permits. So, I think it's fair to say that maybe you should be focusing more on the water companies and less on going after farmers.

Now, this Bill is only coming forward now, as we are weeks away from the end of the sixth Senedd term. I feel that this delay is a significant failing of the Welsh Government. So, will you confirm, Cabinet Secretary, why there was such a delay in bringing this Bill forward, and what are the timescales for the new Green Paper that you introduced yesterday?

I'm happy to lay out the timescales, but it may be a misunderstanding, which I'm happy to clarify, on your part. So, Sir Jon Cunliffe and the independent review reported last year. The UK Government brought forward its White Paper very recently—very recently—on the back of that. We needed to work with the UK Government on that, and we've been involved in their White Paper, but we needed to wait for that to be laid before we brought forward our Green Paper. It's important that it's a Green Paper, with very white edges, because it's set a direction of travel, and because it allows the people of Wales now to put their ideas in. And those ideas could well come from landowners, farmers, water companies, but also citizens of Wales, and some of those people who are passionate about their river quality, as well as issues of affordability as well. So, there's no delay on this. It's actually coming forward in a set chronology, and we had to wait for Sir Jon Cunliffe to report, for the UK Government to bring its White Paper, and then we brought it forward within weeks of that. And now we're out to the Green Paper, and we'd stress to people, 'Please, put your ideas in. We're open to ideas within that Green Paper.'

On the broad timescale of this, we can see that, by the time the UK Government has finished its consultation—bearing in mind there's also a piece in here about actually devolving the powers to Wales in terms of bringing forward our own regulator, and not based on what we would describe as the outdated, complex regulatory system of the 1980s, but one that is much more in keeping with our Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, so environmental, as well as economic—we will be looking at two or three years down the line to bring forward one of the most major pieces of transformative legislation that looks at water as an asset in this country, that gives voice to the public over this, and then deals with it in a systems approach where every aspect of water is considered, and is not based on that old complex model of regulation that we've lived with for about 30 years.

Thank you. Now, for Dŵr Cymru customers, they're now set to receive a 4.8 per cent increase in their water bills, and this on top of other cost-of-living pressures as a result of this Welsh Labour Government here, and in London. They'll be rising from £652 on average to £683. Yet, in Aberconwy, and north Wales as a whole, we have seen a series of burst water pipes that have caused residents much misery to be without water. Only the day before yesterday, we had one in Glan Conwy. There's another one I've seen this morning. It's happening all the time. Also, when people report leaks, it can take ages for leaks, or even pollution incidents, to be dealt with by Dŵr Cymru or NRW. But we all know that this clearly demonstrates that the existing infrastructure is not up to standard. Now, part of the money that's been received by Dŵr Cymru, and, indeed, the extra costs they're putting on people's bills, is, they say, because they're going to massively upgrade the infrastructure that is so outdated. Cabinet Secretary, what happens if the Welsh Labour Government isn't re-elected, as regards the Green Bill? Also, how will you take Dŵr Cymru to task if the moneys that they have had from the Welsh Government and the moneys they're having from our residents does not mightily improve the infrastructure of our water systems? Diolch.

Thanks, Janet. Look, the first thing to say is that we don't need to wait for the outcomes of the Green Paper, or new legislation, to get on with fixing the problems with the infrastructure, the levels of customer satisfaction, the leakage, and so on. The pressure is on both of our water companies to perform for the customers who have seen over the last year and now are going to see those bigger bills landing. Now, that does deliver £6 billion investment, so we absolutely need to see that being delivered—not waiting, but, in this price period, actually investing in the priorities that will stop those combined sewer overflows polluting the river, stop the sewage outfalls, and right across the piste as well. We've got a new chief executive officer in place and a new chair in place as well. There is an opportunity here for them to actually deliver now, and from today onwards, and to make that £6 billion investment work.

You asked about what comes after the next Government. We can never forecast in a range of policy areas. But what I do know is that the Green Paper that we launched and the direction of travel that we set out has been warmly welcomed by all those stakeholders out there—those stakeholders from environmental organisations, the land managers, the water companies and everybody else—because I think it takes the right approach to say, 'Let's take an approach that not only has stability within the regulatory environment to get the investment in to do what we need to do, but also can deal with those other public imperatives, such as the quality of our rivers, the affordability of bills and everything else'. So, I think—I think—that the public out there, as well as the wider stakeholders, will hold any future Government's feet to the fire and say, 'Deliver on this. Give us the powers that we need to drive a different way forward away from the complex, outdated regulatory structure we have, to a much more systems-planning approach where you value water and you look after it, and we have those pristine rivers and coastlines and marine environment as well.'

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm going to remain with the theme of water, because our water system is not working for people, and we've heard already about the increase in water bills. But the pressure is not relenting, because the average increase in bills will be around £33 a year, but customers of Hafren Dyfrdwy will face bills that will increase by £54. We've also seen an increase in the number of complaints to the water consumer council of more than 50 per cent last year, and water poverty is becoming a persistent problem. Further to what you've just said, could I ask what do you hope that the Government will be able to do to stand together with Welsh households who are being asked to pay more for something that is essential to their lives? And what parts of the Green Paper do you think will be able to empower customers in Wales the most?

Thank you for that, and just a couple of quick responses without repeating what I've said already. One of the proposals within the Green Paper is that we bring forward bespoke proposals here that strengthen the voice of the consumer but also the citizen of Wales as well—so, the consumer in terms of affordability and having that strong voice to help shape future investment as well. It's important that this is not done to people, but people are brought along and they understand if there's a £6 billion uplift and it's impacting on their bills, well, what's that going to go to? Do they agree with it in future, in the next price determination round? Can they help shape that? Interestingly, some of the consumer analysis is saying that consumers would not be against a small uplift in their bills as long as they knew it was going to deliver the increased performance on a range of areas. That's one thing. So, that's within the Green Paper. The second aspect is, as I said, even in this price review period in front of us now, with the larger bills landing on people's doorsteps, we need to make use of this £6 billion right now and show those improvements over the next few years.

And the final thing I'd want to say to you is that we need to get the social tariffs right as well for those who are most vulnerable. We do have, I have to say, within Wales, examples of some of the more progressive side of social tariffs. We don't want to lose the gains. It is better than many of the companies across the border in England. But Sir Jon Cunliffe did say, 'You should look at that and see if there is a better way to do it, a more consistent way'. We have two water companies here in Wales. So I think, again, this Green Paper gives the opportunity for people to put their voices in and say, 'Is there a better way to look at social tariffs for the more vulnerable?'

Thank you. I welcome that. Turning now to the water regulator to be established, one way of fixing this system, of course, would be to make the prices fairer.

For example, the rising block tariff model that's used in cities like Athens, Seville, Los Angeles, Singapore, ensures the first amount of water that covers basic need is free. Higher use is then charged progressively more, and that means it treats water as an essential need rather than a luxury. Do you hope that the new regulator will be able to follow from these examples and explore, possibly, a way of introducing a rising block tariff model to make those water bills fairer? You are smiling at me.

And secondly, in terms of accountability, will the new regulator have the power to challenge excessive executive pay and ensure that families are not paying prices that are higher for salaries and bonuses?

I'm only smiling purely because I think that we have kicked off the consultation on the Green Paper already here today in the Senedd Chamber—[Interruption.] Indeed. And what I hope is that, in the Green Paper—. We've deliberately done it as a Green Paper, rather than being entirely prescriptive, so that ideas can be put in to that. So, I would welcome you and others putting your thoughts in to this. And certainly, as we bring forward the proposals then on the regulator, the regulator can be shaped for us in Wales in a way that fits us here in Wales. Sir Jon Cunliffe was very, very clear that we have a different policy and legislative framework here in Wales. We can make decisions that fit the demands of the public not only to have a 1980s-style economic regulator but also to do bigger things as well, and that could include proposals that people can put forward on the type of tariffs that we can do, the type of regulator that we would want to see. So, thank you for those suggestions, but I don't want to pre-empt where this Green Paper might go. But it's certainly a Green Paper with white edges. We're setting the direction of travel, but we want to hear from people.

Thank you, Delyth. The Welsh Government does recognise the challenges posed by our industrial past. It's a burden unfortunately shared by local authorities not just here in Wales, but right across the UK. In Wales, we continue to support the redevelopment of land impacted by contamination, where possible, through the planning process, and we assist regulators by funding training and developing technical guidance.

Well, this is such an important issue, of course, I welcome what is happening, because contaminated land is a hidden scar on the skin of our scenery. It's left so many of our mountains, valleys, rivers poisoned with pollution that we can't see. So-called forever chemicals are oil resistant. They can be toxic and they linger on landscapes for years. Many were dumped by companies like Monsanto in quarries and landfill sites across the UK, and one such site is Tŷ Llwyd quarry near Ynysddu. At times of heavy rain, leachate leaks out of the site and dirty brown, sometimes orange, liquid flows down the mountain towards the Sirhowy river. Questions remain about how much testing is happening and whether the site will be officially recorded as contaminated land, which seems baffling to those of us who have seen the orange liquid ourselves. Now, it's been announced that the UK will increase testing for these forever chemicals. Surely, though, they should be banned, not just tested for. They can be carcinogenic. Would you use your influence with the UK Government to ban the use of these chemicals once and for all?

Thank you, Delyth. First of all, can I urge you to keep in contact with Caerphilly County Borough Council in terms of Tŷ Llwyd? We've certainly had several exchanges on this issue and the work that has been done there and whether or not it should be defined as contaminated land or not, so I won't rehearse that. But, certainly, in terms of the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances plan, which was announced on Tuesday this week, this is the first comprehensive statement of the UK Government's approach to managing PFAS, and it does have clear benefits to Wales. So, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has worked with us and with other devolved Governments to jointly develop the plan. It brings together work across a wide range of PFAS-related policy areas, and, for the first time ever, this plan sets out a UK-wide approach to minimising the harmful effects of PFAS while supporting that transition to safer alternatives.

Now, I know some people are calling for an outright ban right here, right now, but what we believe is that, first of all, crucially, this plan's approach aligns with the Welsh Government priorities for public health and environmental protection and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 as well. It's consistent with our long-term goals. Our interests have been considered and incorporated throughout the development. We do believe that this is a step forward and it's an evidence-led and proportionate approach that helps us in Wales address the PFAS challenge effectively. So, we will always keep this live and under review, and it's good to see, by the way, the focus that is now coming onto this, including by outside organisations as well. We do have to address this. This is a definite step forward, and we're pleased we've had engagement with the UK Government in bringing it forward.

I'd like to thank Delyth Jewell for raising this question. I hosted an event in the Senedd with Michael Sheen last week, which looked at the issue of contaminated land. It will feature in a two-part documentary called Buried. I also attended a Friends of the Earth Ruthin event last week, where they screened Dark Waters. The use of forever chemicals by large corporates, and the way they try to avoid responsibility for the harm that they cause to land and to the natural environment and people is disturbing, and not just impacting south Wales, but also areas of north Wales as well. I was surprised how widespread this is. I will write to you with more detail, but would you follow this up with the UK Government? Because we talk about 'polluter pays', and I think that we should be chasing these big corporations like Monsanto to pay for testing, which is expensive—we were told it's about £1,000 for each test to test for those PFAS—and also for any remediation that's needed in the future, because local authorities can't afford that remediation. And I would also support a ban on glyphosate, which continues to be used by local authorities. It's not necessary. Thank you.

First of all, Carolyn, we absolutely noted that event that took place that you hosted last week, and it's really good to see not just Michael Sheen, but actually several people, campaigners over recent years, who've highlighted this, including work that's been done on the BBC as well, with documentaries on this. And we welcome this, because it brings it into real sharp focus for policy makers right across the UK. And this is a UK issue. We recognise this is really complex. There isn't an overnight fix on this one, but we've got to do everything we can do to minimise the impact and then drive forward change.

You raise the important point about what we can do together, working with other nations who are equally affected by this, because all the nations now recognise we need to act together on this. So, the recent publication, indeed, of the UK PFAS plan is a real step forward, and it's an example of Governments coming together to pave the way forward from this emerging environmental threat.

Now, just to let the Siambr know, I intend to seek a similar collaborative UK approach to contaminated land and land contamination at the next inter-ministerial group meeting, which is tomorrow. We've already taken decisive action on tackling threats in other areas, for example, spoil heaps. We want to learn from this approach and see if we can have a UK approach on this as well. My officials are also continuing to work with local authorities and Public Health Wales and others, but I think there's a piece of work we can do at a UK level, because it's affecting all of us.

Diolch, Paul. We're supporting a sustainable and productive agricultural industry in all of Wales, including west Wales, through the sustainable farming scheme. In west Wales, farm businesses have received basic payment scheme 2025 payments worth over £65.6 million, and support is also available through our rural investment schemes and via Farming Connect.

Well, Cabinet Secretary, I've been contacted by a farmer who is very concerned about the Welsh Government's sustainable farming scheme and what it would mean for his farm. He explained that the scheme in its current form will reduce his subsidy by 19 per cent, and, at the same time, this farmer will have to pay an increasing amount in costs to comply with the scheme. For example, he'll have to pay costs to establish a herbal ley, costs to pay a vet to develop a biosecurity plan, and costs to union representatives to help complete his paperwork. And on top of that, he will lose a day's pay to do the six hours of continuous professional development requirement, which is a key universal action for compliance. So, Cabinet Secretary, do you understand the frustration of small commercial farmers, like my constituent, who will be hit hard financially to comply with your Government scheme? And what message do you have for farmers who have concerns like this?

The message I have for all farmers is that we've designed, in collaboration with the ministerial round-table, with the officials group working, a scheme that is available to all farmers and accessible to all farmers as well. And there is also support out there, Paul, for all those farmers, and they can turn to Farming Connect and our advisers to help them work through how it will work for them.

By the way, things such as—. And it is worth that individual and others picking this up with our farm advisers, and with the unions, who've been very good in this space providing advice as well, because on things such as the benchmarking, things such as the continuing professional development, we've made it very clear that many farmers are already doing aspects of this. But helping them identify what they're doing and how that can count towards it makes some of those measures more understandable. But they need to have a one-to-one conversation and work through this.

To be crystal clear, we've not only sustained the BPM payments going forward over the last couple of years, sometimes at risk in budgets as well, something that was not happening across the border in England, but we've also made sure that the quantum of funding is there now, going forward, both in the universal layer and also in the optional and collaborative. Bear in mind, Paul, all of this funding is there to do a whole-farm approach. So, it's productive farms producing really good food, viable businesses, and also doing things such as climate resilience for the good of that farm, as well as for the wider good, and also nature and biodiversity. It's right that funds go into farms to help them do all of these things. We'll continue to do that, and I would say to that farmer, but also to all others, 'It may not be absolutely perfect for every single farmer', but, I have to say, the broad response we've had from the over 2,000 farmers that have attended the roadshows, and the many, many farmers who've gone on to the ready reckoners has been, 'This can work for us', including, by the way, some in the dairy intensive sector, who've had difficulties previously in accessing the scheme and are now looking at this and saying, 'Well, I think we can make this work.'

Diolch, Sioned. Welsh Government is committed to ensuring all legacy mining sites are safe and don't cause environmental harm, including former opencast sites. To support this, I have asked officials to establish a new working group to consider the challenges and the opportunities associated with reclamation and regeneration of mining legacy sites.

Thank you for that response. That's good news because, as you know, despite years of raising concerns about the former East Pit opencast site in my own region, many of my constituents have expressed serious concerns about the long-term safety of the site, and they haven't received many answers to date. I've raised this several times with the Welsh Government and Neath Port Talbot Council and other bodies and authorities, talking about that need for independent assessments of hydrology and seismic risk, but there's been very little action to date. And for people who live in the communities around Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen, Cwmllynfell and Tairgwaith, near this huge void that has been left by the opencast and is now full of water, the uncertainty is causing concern. They do need assurances that public bodies are working together, are sharing information, and are responding to their concerns in a transparent manner. So, what further support can the Welsh Government offer to strengthen this collaboration, and what exactly will this new working group be looking at first?

Thank you for that supplementary. First of all to say, in terms of East Pit itself, and many of us live within the shadow of these former disused and abandoned, sometimes, sites as well, and have to work through how you see a future for these sites for the betterment of the community as well, particularly—. But, in terms of East Pit, my officials have previously engaged with Neath Port Talbot Council to discuss the concerns on things such as stability and flooding hazards at the site, in particular with respect to the flooded excavation on that site. I'm very happy that continuing engagement goes on between Welsh Government and local government on that. In fact, Welsh Government has offered support to the council in their response to the concerns that are currently being raised at East Pit. So, we want to keep engaged in this within the powers that we have.

But on the bigger issue, because this is not just an issue that affects East Pit, but other parts of Wales as well, as we know, and also other parts of the UK as well, the mining legacy group that we're establishing will draw together, we think, the right group of stakeholders to consider the challenges—and they are complex, as we know; there is not an easy overnight solution to this—but also the opportunities to resolve this, which are associated with the management and the reclamation and the regeneration of mining legacy sites. So, the long-term strategic aim is to ensure that disused tips, as we've done with the work that we are doing separate from this, and other mining legacy sites, including former opencast sites, become beneficial assets for communities, supporting local economies and the wider environment. So, that's what we're trying to do in the mining legacy group, but I don't want to overhype expectations that they will resolve the problem tomorrow, because some of these problems have been going back decades. But we're setting that group up in order to explore what the challenges are, what the best way forward is, and that might mean also picking up the phone to UK Government and saying, 'We need to think about this together as well.'

You will know, Cabinet Secretary, that in August 2024 the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee prepared the 'Restoration of opencast mining sites' report. It was fascinating to read. Thank you, Llyr. In it, it had 26 recommendations that it made of Welsh Government. Can you tell us how many of those have been accepted and implemented, 18 months on?

I can't, off the top of my head, and you wouldn't expect me to, off the top of my head, give a numerical answer to that. What I can say is we've taken forward recently the legislation that deals with the safety and welfare of communities affected by the legacy of our industrial past, including the establishment of a new authority with a specific aim of that, protecting the welfare and safety of those communities.

We've also put a quantum of funding into the restoration of these former coal tips that has never been seen before. It's a quantum of funding that the Welsh Government, I have to say, with the support of the Senedd Chamber, has been putting in for the last five years, since Tylorstown, to walk and inspect and monitor and put forward solutions since we had the Tylorstown tip. And now we've been reached out to, last year, by the UK Labour Government, who have come in and actually reached into their pockets and put a substantial instalment—I do call it an instalment—into this as well. So, we will be spending well over £200 million over the next few years on restoration. So, I can't give you a numerical answer, but I can give you a substantive answer: we are cracking on with this at pace.

Diolch, Gareth. The Welsh Government recognises microplastics as an emerging threat to water quality and the wider environment. We know that microplastics enter waterways via run-off and waste water, though treatment removes over 99 per cent. Now, whilst there is no current monitoring requirement, Welsh Government and NRW are assessing the emerging evidence to inform future standards, monitoring and action.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. Microplastics are accumulating on the surface of our seas, rivers, tap water, in our soil, food, and, most importantly, in our bodies. Every single person in the UK has microplastics present in their body, which is an uncomfortable fact to learn. The University of Portsmouth's Global Plastics Policy Centre outlined the growing scale of the crisis, calling for a co-ordinated UK road map with clear targets and timelines. They warned that, without immediate intervention, the UK risks falling behind global leaders such as the EU and the US, which are already introducing enforceable targets and limits on microplastics in water and industrial processes.

I appreciate that the Welsh Government has taken action on single-use plastics and the UK Government banned microbeads in 2017, but much more needs to be done, collaboratively, in order to reduce the amount of microplastics entering our ecosystem, leaving a cleaner environment for the next generation, as currently infants are ingesting plastic almost from birth. The Marine Conservation Society has proposed mandatory microfibre filters for washing machines, which are large contributors to microplastics in our waterways. [Interruption.] I'm on my question now. So, what other measures has the Welsh Government considered, such as washing machine filters, to reduce the number of microplastics entering our ecosystem?

On that last question, there could be some interesting innovations within appliances, and that would need to be addressed not just at a Wales level, but at a UK and a European level as well, so that we have the design of the appliances actually filtering microplastics out at source there. It's bigger than a Welsh devolved issue there. But more than happy to confirm that we would certainly be supporting innovations in technology.

What we can do is, though, because of the importance of this issue, we can actually work both here within Wales and across the UK. The most recent phase of the chemical investigation programme, the CIP, is a national project that brings together water companies, regulators, research experts, consultants, investigating chemicals in the environment, including microplastics. As I mentioned in my response to you initially, they found that 99 per cent, just to be clear, of microplastics are removed through waste water treatment processes at tested sites. Welsh Water's 2025-30 business plan commits over £4 billion in investment, including £2.5 billion for environmental improvements, and nearly £900 million specifically to tackle storm overflows. That shows the scale of action under way.

NRW is working directly with the water industry in Wales to further cut microplastic pollution, including projects to identify sources from waste water treatment and reduce microplastics in biosolids ahead of the next planning cycle. NRW is also working on prevention methods with other research partners, including the UK Government's Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, to strengthen the evidence base on risks and impacts. There's a lot more to do in this space as the evidence emerges, but we're not waiting for it, we're getting on with it.

The Welsh Government is committed to tackling potential pollution associated with historical waste disposal sites. Our overarching aims are the protection of human health and the environment. We continue to provide support to local authorities and Natural Resources Wales as they address sites that are suspected of causing pollution.

Thank you for that response.

Of course, this question was very much submitted in response to the event that was sponsored by Carolyn Thomas just a few weeks ago. In that event, we learnt that 45,000 sites across Wales could be contaminated with PCBs, but in reality we only have 82 sites that have been fully examined and formally classified as contaminated.

We know that the company Monsanto was heavily involved. We knew that they were aware of environmental and health dangers as early as the 1960s, but continued to produce PCBs in Wales until 1977. We've talked much about how the polluter needs to pay; well, we need to hold them accountable for that. They were quick enough to make a profit off our communities, they should be held accountable and they should come back for the clean-up.

What also came through to me in that event was the need for clarity and alignment between local authorities, Natural Resources Wales, the Senedd and the UK Government on responsibility and enforcement, and about securing the resources that are needed to ensure that those toxic chemicals are not leaching into our waterways and land.

I welcome what the Cabinet Secretary said in response to Carolyn Thomas in terms of his intention to raise that in the inter-ministerial group. How does he see that progressing once it's been raised and what does he believe the timeline would be to ensure that that partnership working takes place?

I'm happy to report back after that IMG meets to see whether there's agreement that we should take forward work on this and what that work might entail. If you can leave me to bring that back, we can bring back some more of the detail on it, but we have to have that discussion first. In principle, I agree with you; those companies that originally were the polluters on these sites, I absolutely agree with the principle that they should be held to account. The question is how. [Interruption.] No, the question is how. [Interruption.] Indeed—

There's no conversation. From the Minister as well.

But this is one of the fundamental challenges, particularly those companies who knew what they were doing. It seems that there is a moral obligation for them to step up and actually make good on this. The question is, legally, how can you hold them to account. But there is also a wider piece of work. Because I think what we can do right here, right now, is work with our local authorities, both in identifying the sites and what we can do to mitigate the impacts of the potential health and wider environmental impacts.

My officials are working with local authorities, NRW, Public Health Wales and other stakeholders to understand right here, right now, what options are available in dealing with these historical landfill and post-industrial sites. But you're right in saying—and I think the public get it quite deeply as well—that if organisations and companies out there knew what they were doing, my goodness, they have a moral responsibility to step up to the mark.

The Welsh Government supports retailers to reduce their energy use through practical training tools and funding support. These training resources guide retailer decision making on efficient refrigeration, including closed‑door options where they are included. We focus on evidence, advice and partnership with retailers to improve energy performance.

I'm sure you've heard yourself ask a younger member of the family, Dirprwy Brif Weinidog, to close the fridge door. I certainly do that on a regular basis. But—and I know this question brought some laughter when I asked it—at many supermarkets, there are no doors at all. This is serious. Campaigners say that if the top five supermarkets put doors on their fridges, the UK would cut its total electricity usage by 1 per cent. In 2023, gas set the price for energy in the UK 98 per cent of the time. There'll be hours when that 1 per cent from supermarket fridges makes the difference as to whether we rely on renewable energy, which is cheap, or on gas, which isn't. So, it is a serious question. The Co-op put doors on their fridges back in 2012. They then reported a £50 million saving because of the doors. But some retailers are hesitant, because they want people to do the impulse buying, and of course, stopping the impulse buying would probably stop a lot of food waste. So, is there something the Welsh Government is considering, and are they willing to look at intervention, rather than waiting to see if things improve? Diolch yn fawr.

We're definitely not waiting to see things improve. This is a really serious question—it really is. I was surprised at the little bits of laughter, because it's a really good question. It goes back to a campaign that kicked off back in 2019 on shutting the fridge door. What we are doing here in Wales is providing support for retailers, including funding and diagnostics, because every store is slightly different, and we know the arguments around this.

Retailers can access not just practical support, but also finance to help them invest in efficient refrigeration where it suits their business. The climate adaptation readiness assessment tool that we have helps retailers identify their energy risks, which can indeed include inefficient refrigeration practices, and choose effective options. They can also access practical support through the green business loan scheme and the futureproofing fund, alongside our wider adaptation and emissions reduction tools.

I do agree with you. I think not only the Co-op—the Co-op is brilliant, absolutely, in what they've done here—but Aldi as well, and others, are starting to head in that direction. We will support, we will work with retailers, through those funding routes, through that advice and support, and help them to make the informed decision. We do this through things such as the retail forum. We do it by working through that with the retail chain, to try and explain to them that there could be savings here for their business, and it'll be thoroughly approved of by their customer base as well.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

No topical questions were accepted today.

We'll move to item 4, the 90-second statements. The first statement is from Alun Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This month marks the sixtieth anniversary of the publication of a White Paper, 'University of the Air', which led to the establishment in 1969 of the Open University. The vision, of course, was driven by Jennie Lee, the arts Minister in Harold Wilson's Labour Government, and, when she was elected in 1929, the youngest woman MP in the House of Commons. In fact, her first contribution to the House of Commons was to attack Winston Churchill. She described him as 'cant, corrupt and incompetent', and so she established herself as one of the most formidable politicians of the twentieth century. And, of course, in publishing the White Paper, she delivered on the Robbins principle, which many of us still hold to today, that higher education should be available to all who are qualified and who wish to take part, irrespective of the means of payment.

Six decades on, the case that Jennie Lee made in the 1960s feels more urgent than ever. We need more flexible learning and more people able to return to education throughout their lives, and we need a renewed commitment to learning rooted in communities. But make no doubt about it, Jennie fought for the Open University, and she fought against the establishment, in the same way as Nye did in establishing the NHS himself. When her ashes were scattered on the same place as Nye, high above Trefil in my constituency, in 1988, what we saw was a politician who had fought for ordinary people, fought for their right to an education, and left a legacy that today we can all be proud of.

It gives me great pleasure to stand here today to celebrate a truly historic anniversary, because it's 150 years since the founding of the Football Association of Wales. On 2 February 1876, at the Wynnstay hotel in Wrexham, a small group came together with a big vision. That meeting led to the birth of the third-oldest national football association in the world.

From the outset, this was about more than sport. It was a statement of confidence—that Wales has its own identity, its own football team, and its own rightful place on the international stage. And throughout the century and a half since then, the red shirt bearing the red dragon has become a symbol of who we are. It hasn’t been an easy journey at times—we all remember some periods of frustration, to say the least—but there have also been golden moments that have defined generations, from the 1958 World Cup, to the 2016 Euros, and the women's Euros in 2025, epic nights when the whole nation united behind the team.

It is not only on the field that we see the influence of the association. In recent years, it has put the Welsh language and our culture at the heart of everything. The association has shown that, yes, sport can be a cultural force, but also a positive economic and social force.

Today, we thank everyone who has been part of that journey—players, coaches, referees, volunteers, fans and whole communities. The FAW has done more than just organise matches; it has helped to shape our nation. That journey continues, because despite everyone and everything, we are still here. So, happy anniversary and thank you, FAW, and onward now to the next 150.

Llongyfarchiadau, big congrats, to Merched y Môr, a four‑woman rowing team from Pembrokeshire. They have just completed the world’s toughest row, Atlantic, one of the most demanding endurance races in the world, and they are the first all‑Wales female crew to attempt it. Denise Leonard, Helen Heaton, Liz Collyer and Heledd Williams rowed an amazing 3,000‑mile unaided journey across the Atlantic, starting from La Gomera in the Canaries on 14 December, and reaching Antigua on Monday, 50 days, 14 hours and 43 minutes later.

When we were all eating our Christmas lunch, or watching The Traitors through January, these four Pembrokeshire women were out rowing the Atlantic. They rowed in pairs in an intense two hours on, two hours off rota around the clock. They averaged 12 hours of rowing per day with minimal sleep, 20 ft waves, severe sickness and storms—four ordinary women who have achieved the extraordinary. They are not elite athletes. They wanted to show that gender, ageing bodies, even their own minds, could not stop them from achieving great things and raise money for charity.

The captain, Denise, said at the start of the journey that they had been planning and training for five years, and that they wanted to make Wales proud. Well, Wales is certainly proud of Merched y Môr. On behalf of the Senedd, huge congratulations to these four brave, resilient women from Pembrokeshire, and to their boat, Cariad.

Thank you, all.

Item 5 today is a debate on the Children, Young People and Education Committee report, 'Routes into post-16 education and training'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Buffy Williams.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to begin by placing on record my thanks to everyone who contributed to this inquiry, from those who welcomed us on visits to my fellow committee members, for the constructive way they approached this work. But most of all, I want to thank the young people and parents who took the time to share their experiences with us. Their honesty, their courage and their insight shaped every stage of this inquiry, and their voices must continue to guide the changes that follow.

When the committee began this inquiry, our aim was simple: to understand what young people actually experience when they move from compulsory schooling into post-16 education and training. Over the course of nearly a year, through written evidence, oral sessions, visits across Wales and the voices of hundreds of young people and parents, a clear picture emerged. We saw a system with real strengths and real potential, but also a system held back by inconsistency, complexity and structural barriers that too often put institutions ahead of learners.

As a committee focused on children and young people, we chose to follow the journey that learners themselves take. We looked at what happens as they prepare to leave year 11, what choices they face at 16, and what support they get as they move into college, sixth form, apprenticeships or work. The complexity of the report reflects the complexity of the system they are expected to navigate.

One of the strongest themes to emerge was the need for genuine parity of esteem between academic and vocational routes. Young people should be able to choose the route that suits them, whether this is academic, vocational or a blend of both, without that choice limiting what they can do next. But we heard very clearly that this isn't the reality yet. Too many learners still feel pushed towards A-levels because of how the system works, not because it's right for them. Others find that vocational routes are undervalued or unavailable. This must change. This lack of parity has real consequences. Participation in post-16 education and training in Wales is still too low, and not enough young people leave with a level 3 qualification. We are concerned that we don't fully understand why, because we don't collect the detailed data we need to track learner journeys properly. So, this isn't just about fairness between routes, it's about whether young people stay in education and get the qualifications that open doors for them.

A second theme was the need for better preparation, information and advice. Young people need good information and support to make decisions about their futures, and so do their families. Careers advice should start early and be consistent. But we found that the quality of advice varies widely. We were particularly struck by the fact that only around a quarter of young people get a chance to do work experience. That is a huge missed opportunity. Work experience is one of the most powerful ways for young people to understand the world of work. We need to better understand what's preventing our young people gaining work experience and remove the barriers currently preventing access.

The third theme was the importance of collaboration. A strong post-16 system depends on schools, colleges and training providers working together. Yet the current funding system can unintentionally create competition instead of collaboration. It can even influence the advice young people receive. We believe this must be addressed. Institutions should be supported and encouraged to work together to offer the best possible outcome and opportunities for learners.

Our report sets out six focused and realistic recommendations that reflect these themes. They include a call for a national strategy for post-16 education and training. They also call for an expansion of the junior apprenticeships. We ask for a review of the post-16 funding system and for a stronger 14 to 16 learner entitlement. Finally, we want better data on learner pathways and a clearer understanding of why so many young people who want apprenticeships still can't access them.

I'm delighted to be able to speak today on the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report into routes into post-16 education. Can I please take this opportunity to thank the committee clerks, the Chair, as well as all the committee members for their hard work, and all those involved in the report?

It is truly disappointing to see successive Welsh Governments failing to support the different options for post-16 education and, ultimately, all career paths for young people. What was clear to the committee is that vocational education isn't getting parity of esteem with academic education, and there is a bias that leans towards a traditional academic route. This, in turn, sadly leaves thousands of young people without the support to having fulfilling careers that are right for them. This lack of parity of esteem was highlighted by a number of witnesses that came to the committee, as well as the fact that routes from vocational education to higher education are difficult to navigate. For example, Careers Wales said to us that these pathways were less linear and less well understood than pure academic routes. Furthermore, a lack of cohesive vocational strategy has a trickle-down effect to unemployment. UK-wide, nearly half, or 45 per cent, of engineering employers do not think the education system in Wales is fit for purpose. In Wales, just 44 per cent of employers think the education system is fit for purpose. I note that the Cabinet Secretary made an oral statement last November about an overarching vocational strategy for young people, but this is a little bit too late. We are now heading for the end of the Senedd term, so how is this able to ensure that vocational education is placed on an equal footing to academic education by this autumn?

I also note the intention to introduce vocational certificate of secondary education by 2027, but has this been thought out properly? The committee has heard from a number of concerned stakeholders who outline that there is a lack of capacity and expertise to teach VCSEs in schools in Wales, that they could create a two-tier system, and that they are tasters rather than a concrete route into employment. One teaching union has also directly said to me, while VCSEs are great in principle, more detail is needed as to what they look like, for example whether they are general studies, or if they are focused on meaningful study and actually focused on vocation. I would like to know how VCSEs also fit into A-levels. Cabinet Secretary, I see that your partners in Westminster are intending to introduce V-levels as well. Is that something that we're going to be looking at introducing here in Wales?

Can I just reiterate the thanks as well, as a member of the Children, Young People and Education Committee? This has been an extremely important report, and I thank everybody—Members and officials—who have played their part in this.

In many ways, it's an appraisal of 27 years of Welsh Government and the skills landscape that they've left young people in Wales with. Now, let's provide some context. I'm just going to take some little bits from the data we have looked at as a committee. Just 33 per cent of learners go on to do A-levels. In England, the corresponding figure is 47 per cent. Now, this may account for our entry rate to HE being the second worst in the UK. For example, the percentage of Welsh domiciled 18-year-olds entering HE in 2023-24 was 29.9 per cent, compared to 49.5 per cent in London and 40.2 per cent in Northern Ireland, and Scotland is roughly about 38 per cent. So, in the UK overall, in terms of those in the most deprived communities that go on to university, it is about 26 per cent. In Wales, it's 18.9 per cent. So, clearly, there's a long way to go.

Now, participation after 16 is also falling, and we've consistently had one of the highest rates in the UK of young people not in education, employment or training. Now, time and time again, Plaid Cymru have called upon this Government to implement a skills strategy, and, within that, a vocational skills strategy. And reiterating the point made by Natasha, the vocational skills strategy needs to have that parity of esteem with the more traditional academic routes.

And I'm glad to see that a call for a skills strategy has been echoed in this report. As the 2023 Sharron Lusher report, which this Government has failed to implement the recommendations of—. Now, Ministers have described implementing the skills strategy as being something long term. Well, I'm afraid this doesn't show the degree of urgency we need for young people making life-changing decisions at 16. They can't wait that long. That's why the young people who'll be voting for Plaid Cymru in May will be voting for a Government that has a skills strategy ready to go, including carrying out a skills audit, and showing ambition and urgency as well.

I will turn to the Welsh language, because many of the recommendations relate to the careers advice provided to young people, and clear deficiencies have been noted in evidence to us as a committee. And this is not only important in order to provide advice to young people on their future, but the more information and experiences are shared with young people that strengthens those supply lines locally and supports local businesses. And bringing local businesses in and holding skills audits and sharing that information with young people is so important in order to ensure that more young people are employed locally. So, I'm very disappointed that the Welsh Government has not accepted this particular recommendation made by the committee.

And the final point I'd like to make, Dirprwy Lywydd, is on Welsh-medium education. We heard evidence that there is a dilemma facing those at 16 years of age who have had Welsh-medium education, particularly those who want to go an FE college rather than staying in the sixth form. The lack of post-16 provision through the medium of Welsh is a barrier for them in continuing along that language route. So, that is something that we must address as a nation. And my final point, in relation to that particularly, is that we must give young people the confidence that there is a career path available for them through the medium of Welsh through the FE sector, and even the HE sector.

So, my final contribution would be that we must ensure that these problems are addressed, and that we must create a system that is based on fairness, ambition and support for the Welsh language and real and meaningful opportunities for young people to develop their confidence and skills. Thank you.

I very much welcome this committee report and believe that if Welsh Government is to make sufficient progress in improving life chances, reducing the numbers not in education, employment or training and meeting Wales's future skills needs, then vocational education and training must sit at the very heart of our pre- and post-16 system. This includes better advice and guidance at an earlier age—a much earlier age. As the report identifies, if that does happen, then it helps tackle gender inequality, it supports learners with additional learning needs, and it prevents disengagement before it becomes entrenched.

Our curriculum here in Wales is clear that careers and work-related experiences should be embedded from the age of three. This is welcome and overdue, I believe. Evidence shows that young people form limiting and stereotypical views about careers by the end of primary school. And the committee report states that schools struggle with capacity and time, and that is why independent, in-person advice and guidance is so important. Colleges and training providers must be enabled to access schools directly, so learners can understand the full range of academic and vocational options available to them, not just the ones their school happens to offer. And good advice is not about steering learners away from academic routes; it's about ensuring vocational routes are equally visible, credible and valued. And, of course, we have long recognised the need for parity of esteem, and others have already spoken of that.

As the chair of the further education and skills cross-party group, I've heard first-hand from colleges about the need to improve vocational pathways and the success that junior apprenticeships are having in the areas in which they take place. Estyn found that those junior apprenticeships are highly effective at re-engaging learners at risk of becoming NEET and are associated with excellent attendance and attainment, and also they are successful in supporting progression into post-16 education, training and employment. Programmes in Cardiff, Bridgend and elsewhere in Wales show their clear value. Yet, despite that success, junior apprenticeships are only available in five local authorities, and I very much support recommendation 3 of the report that junior apprenticeships should be expanded so that they are available across Wales. And I'm very glad the Welsh Government has accepted that recommendation, but, along with that, funding of course—adequate funding—is necessary, and £1 million, as stipulated in the Welsh Government's response, is not, I'm afraid, adequate. So, I hope that that can be added to and built upon.

Of course, we want to see, as the report highlights, parity of esteem between vocational and academic paths, but I believe that parity of esteem is unachievable currently in Wales. Firstly, it is difficult or impossible to find a level 6 or level 7 apprenticeship, that is, apprenticeships that are equivalent to an undergraduate or Master's degree. I've raised this on several occasions with regard to solicitor qualifications in Wales. Secondly, junior apprenticeships are not guaranteed stepping stones to higher level qualifications, as the report highlighted. And finally, again as the report says, there is a lack of explanation as to what qualifications are equivalent, and a lack of available information about mapping out your career through apprenticeship levels.

Universities in Wales are also concerned that not enough learners taking vocational qualifications are moving on to university level. There's obviously an issue here. We cannot expect young learners to view vocational and academic routes of qualification as equal unless they are truly equal, and I don't think they are. There is no parity at the moment in Wales.

I agree with Cefin's comments in relation to what he said about the Welsh language, but I have to say, Cefin, that I'm disappointed that there are no recommendations on the Welsh language in the report, because it is clear that this is a problem. It's a problem that so many young people feel that they do have to turn to English-medium provision once they reach the age of 16, and they see that as an advantage to them. One learner who provided evidence said that more support is required for young people who feel that they have to change language. Now, I think that this is a practical challenge. Students are seeking support. It's more than just a matter of awareness raising, in my view, in terms of their choices. We have to know why they feel this way.

And then I want to just talk about applications to universities and Seren. Welsh students across all levels of deprivation apply to universities at either the lowest number in the UK or within 1 per cent of being the lowest. Now, we've heard reasons given why that is the case, but it is disappointing that none of the recommendations explicitly focus on that figure. Instead, the report contains Welsh universities' criticism of Seren. The programme supports the most academically gifted Welsh children to apply to top universities in the UK, which they called the ‘study in England’ campaign, which disadvantaged the Welsh higher education sector.

Now, Cefin and I will disagree on this. We agree on most points, but we will disagree on the Seren point. It will be in the best interests of some Welsh students, especially Welsh students from a deprived background, to apply to institutions outside of Wales. Many of us here benefited from going to universities outside of Wales before returning to Wales to live, to work and to raise our families. We should not be depriving Welsh children from deprived backgrounds of having those opportunities, of opening that door. I don’t think saying that makes you less of a nationalist; I think it makes you more of a Welsh patriot, saying that we should have Welsh ambassadors going out of Wales and then coming back. Of course we need to make Welsh institutions more attractive to our young people, but the proportion of Welsh students who apply and get admitted to Oxbridge is already lower than the rest of the UK. That’s why Seren exists, and that's why we need—. Seren isn’t perfect, but that’s why we need to work to make Seren a better institution. But that figure is surely linked to the fact that a lower proportion of Welsh students apply overall to university in the first place. We need action to know about that.

Finally, the gender data on young people. The report was surprised to see the swap between young men and young women. It was therefore surprising to me, Chair of the committee, why you then highlighted about young men, even though the report said the data showed that it was young women last year that were most—. There’s a huge swing of 7 per cent, and I’d like to know more about it, because the Welsh Government response dealt with English data. I’d like to know why that is the case, are the figures correct, and how can we deal with that.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I’ll finish there. The report raises really important issues, really important findings. What we need now is urgency and practical intervention. Diolch yn fawr.

I'd just like to start by paying tribute to our friend and colleague Hefin David, and his report, ‘Transitions to employment’. I’d also like to thank the Chair, Members, the committee team, the organisations, parents, guardians and young people who gave evidence and took part in the inquiry. Those round-table conversations were impactful and incredibly important in helping us understand the barriers facing young people and in shaping our recommendations.

We heard there is still biased advice in the system, alongside competition between schools to retain students in sixth form and further education, as funding follows the pupil. Pupils and parents, who are such a strong influence, need clear, unbiased and relevant information about what jobs are available and which education routes lead to them. This could be supported by a dedicated website and by providing information stands at parents' evenings.

Earlier, I talked to the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, who said they are desperate to get into schools, but they find it very difficult. They would also like to know when large projects are coming forward, so that they can work on a forward plan and also look at recruiting apprentices.

Transport is a huge barrier, but it also can be an enabler. I welcome the £1 bus fare for under-21s and the passing of the bus Bill, which will ensure that routes are planned and mapped based on need going forward.

Work experience is vital, yet access to it is lacking. I heard from one parent whose daughter was disengaging with mainstream education and was offered work experience in the natural environment. This inspired and re-engaged her, and she went on to achieve qualifications through a combination of work and education in an area that she enjoyed.

We also heard that Careers Wales advice and support is inconsistent, and I believe that Estyn should carry out a thematic review. Funding has probably made an impact. I am pleased the Welsh Government has invested in the junior apprenticeship scheme, which seems to be really successful, and that the funding has doubled recently.

We continue to see announcements about investment in renewable energy, including offshore windfarms, which raises important questions about what skills will be needed: marine engineers, welders, electricians. I understand that there is now a ministerial group developing a tertiary approach to skills, and this work must align closely with future labour needs.

I was pleased to hear this morning at the CYPE committee that the North Wales Tertiary Alliance has been formed, and that the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Vikki Howells, spoke about a mapping exercise that's taken place, which is really positive. Our public services, including health, have significant vacancies as well and should be included in any skills mapping, and we've just completed an inquiry into teacher recruitment and retention. So, I think that should all be part of the workforce plan.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm grateful to the Children, Young People and Education Committee for their report on their inquiry into routes into post-16 education and training. They have produced a significant piece of work with a wide-ranging scope, covering the portfolios of myself, the Minister for Further and Higher Education and the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership. I would also like to thank those who gave evidence to the committee, and in particular the young people themselves. We all share a common goal: to ensure every young person in Wales can progress along their chosen educational pathway, gain higher level skills, fulfil their potential and contribute to a strong, sustainable economy. This inquiry came at an important time. The tertiary education sector in Wales must change, becoming more sustainable, more accessible, more integrated and better aligned with future demographic, economic and skills needs.

In November, the Minister for Further and Higher Education set out five pressing challenges facing Wales's tertiary sector and has now published a detailed evidence paper and launched a call for submissions. We've established a ministerial advisory group, made up of stakeholders from across the sector, to focus on the strategic priorities for tertiary education, in particular on increasing participation rates across post-16 education and stabilising finances. We've designed the call for submissions to give us a much clearer picture of the pressures and opportunities across the system. The feedback, alongside other evidence, including this important report from the committee, will help shape our future policy direction. This Government accepts the central challenge set by the committee. We must make the post-16 system more collaborative and easier for young people to navigate. That is why we established Medr in 2024, to plan, fund and assure quality across a coherent tertiary system in Wales.

The Welsh Government has responded to each of the recommendations addressed to us in this report in writing. Today, I will set out our broad response to the various sections of the report. First, the committee recommends that an overarching strategy for post-16 education, encompassing both academic and vocational pathways, is developed. The strategic direction for vocational education and training in Wales will be published prior to the pre-election period. It will reflect the conclusions of our stakeholder reference group on how to strengthen vocational education and training in Wales. The decision on whether to produce a broad tertiary strategy or a specific vocational strategy will depend on the outcome of our call for submissions. However, the strategic direction for vocational learning will provide a strong foundation for that work.

Secondly, the report addresses pre-16 education. We accept the recommendation to continue to grow the junior apprenticeship programme and fully share the committee's view of its impact. Junior apprenticeships are now offered in seven colleges and I am really keen that they are available to even more learners across Wales. An Estyn report on junior apprenticeships in May 2024 described how they have a transformational impact on learners at risk of disengaging. Our draft budget therefore increased our funding for this programme to £1 million in 2026-27—more than double the budget of three years ago. And I know that many Members of this Chamber have seen the scheme in action and have been as impressed with it as I am.

We also accept the need to clarify our approach to pre-16 vocational education. We will continue to encourage schools to work in partnership with each other and with FE and HE institutions, and are currently exploring how best to support the implementation of our new made-for-Wales vocational certificates of secondary education. The report makes a series of recommendations about transitions to 16 to 18 education and training. Our 14 to 16 learner entitlement sets out the advice, guidance and experiences that learners should receive. We accept in principle the recommendation to expand this, and the Government will work with stakeholders to consider strengthening guidance to set out more clearly our expectations about how learners should hear directly from colleges, work-based providers and universities about post-16 opportunities.

Whilst we do not disagree with the committee's concerns about the importance of Careers Wales advice and barriers to work experience, the work proposed by the committee would duplicate recent work that has already taken place. For this reason, we cannot accept the calls for additional further analysis in these areas. In relation to recommendation 7, Estyn undertook a review of careers guidance in secondary schools in 2022. Careers Wales is evaluating its current offer to inform its new strategy for implementation in 2027. Commissioning another review now would risk duplicating work. Since September 2024, Careers Wales have offered a careers guidance interview to all key stage 4 learners before they leave compulsory education. This is alongside targeted additional support for those most at risk. This offer was not in place in time to be reflected within the committee's inquiry. Careers Wales provided careers guidance to over 86 per cent of year 11 learners in the 2024-25 cohort.

I call on Buffy Williams to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to put on record my thanks to the Cabinet Secretary for her response, and I'd also like to thank all Members for their contributions today.

Natasha, I agree about the concerns about the VCSEs. We had a lot of mixed responses on this, as you know. Young people and educators need to see these qualifications as worth while, and right now, as we heard, they're not.

Cefin mentioned that cohort of young people who drop off the grid. We need to know where these young people are ending up and why they are choosing not to go into further education. It's a real worry, especially after our report, 'Children on the margins'. We know how important it is to keep track of these young people and to see what pathway they are taking in life.

John highlighted how important it is for young people to receive careers advice as early as possible, and that must be quality advice. That word is so important for our young people. It must be quality advice, because it really does make a difference. As Rhys pointed out, there is confusion for young people when deciding what qualification is more suitable for them. Again, this is why quality advice is essential, and quality advice at the youngest possible starting age.

Carolyn spoke about advice for parents and pupils. We heard time and time again that parents feel left out and don't know where to go for advice. That has to be something that is at the forefront of every young person's educational journey. They must be able to know where to go for that all-important advice.

You also touched on learner travel, and, as you know, it was something that we all wanted to do. Unfortunately, we ran out of time as a committee. We know how important learner travel is for our young people. We know the barriers that our young people face, and learner travel is definitely one of those barriers. I hope the next Welsh Government look closely at how we can make learner travel far more affordable than it is today.

This debate has shown how strongly we all feel about supporting young people as they move into post-16 education and training. I would also like to say a big 'thank you' to my fellow committee members for working so collaboratively across the parties, because I think at the end of every single session we came to the same conclusion, and that was that our young people need quality, expert advice to ensure they are moving in the right direction, on the right pathway, and they're not having to go back into higher education in their 30s, in their 40s; that they get it right the first time off the blocks.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 6 is next, a debate on the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee report, 'Digging the dirt: Improving Wales’ soil health'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name under the title 'Digging the dirt: Improving Wales’ soil health', the debate tabled by the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee.

Soil is a vital resource. It is the biggest capital asset of any farmer, but its value is often overlooked by policy makers. Healthy soil is absolutely vital for food production but also flood prevention, carbon storage and biodiversity. Soil degradation is also costing us money; the annual cost across Wales and England is estimated to be £1.2 billion. Soil is also incredibly slow to build up. This means from a practical perspective, it is essential and a finite resource. Professor Emmett told us that, for those reasons, every time you see soil running off a field, it should make you cry.

If you wish to have enough quality land to feed our children and the generations to come, the Welsh Government must urgently act to ensure our soil is a priority and its health is not just protected, but improved. This is why we held the inquiry and drafted this report. The report makes seven recommendations and draws six conclusions aimed at protecting and improving Welsh soil health. Testing will be a key cornerstone helping us to stop further degradation and to improve our soil. We welcome the soil testing elements of the sustainable farming scheme; however, unless it is acted on, there is little point in collecting the data. This is why the focus of several recommendations and conclusions is around ensuring soil health is working and the data is appropriately shared.

We heard that tenant farmers were less likely to undertake soil testing as they were less able to improve the soil health of their farms. We also heard that the increase in shorter tenancy deals was exacerbating this issue. This is why recommendation 2 calls for specific support to help tenant farmers to improve their soil. I was pleased to see that all of these recommendations and conclusions were accepted, though I did slightly shudder at the 'in principle' clarifier. I really hope—and I hope that the Deputy First Minister can confirm today—that this report is being used by his team and that they're working on the policy to inform the development of the sustainable farming scheme.

I would also like to underline that the support for tenant farmers need not just be through the SFS. We were interested to hear how National Trust Cymru supports its tenants to join schemes like Pasture for Life or the organic scheme, which help them improve the land and get a premium for their produce. Has the Deputy First Minister considered promoting options like this more widely to tenant farmers?

As with many issues, planning was raised as a threat to our best agricultural land. There will always be a natural tension between the need to grow food and use land for other important purposes such as housing or infrastructure. I also accept that the Welsh Government has done work here. But at the end of the day, our best and most versatile agricultural land is a precious resource that needs to be protected. I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will reiterate his points from the evidence he gave to the inquiry and from his response to our report that Wales is ahead of the curve on protecting our best agricultural land.

However, we heard a lot of evidence that there was more that could be done. As such, I was disappointed that the Welsh Government rejected recommendation 3 to develop a framework to support planning officers to support existing planning regulations around protecting the best quality land. We heard this point being made this afternoon in questions to the Minister from the Member for Newport East, John Griffiths. Whilst we may be doing better than our neighbours, it is clear from the evidence we received that more can be done and more should be done.

Food security is going to be such an important issue in the future, and when our best agricultural land is built on, it is gone. So, we shouldn't be resting on our laurels, we should be ensuring that we do not lose any more top-quality land and make sure that it has the protections it deserves. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—and now the Presiding Officer, who, because of our report, has come in, because she's so excited to hear it. I thank Members for taking part in the debate and I look forward to listening to their contributions.

I'll have you know, Chair of the committee, that I've had constituents write to me about the importance of this report, and I'm very keen to be here to listen to the debate.

I am very pleased to contribute to this debate, and I thank the committee for its work. As we've heard, soil health is a fundamental issue. It's important to the future of agriculture, the environment and the wider rural economy. But in the past, it has been an issue that has not received the attention it deserves, as the committee Chair has said. That is gradually changing, and the committee's inquiry and the report have contributed to raising that awareness.

The truth is that soil quality and having healthy soil underpins so many benefits. When it comes to food production, flood prevention, improving water quality, restoring biodiversity and carbon storage, soil plays a central role in all of these. But soil, of course, is not a renewable resource and, far too often, we have been mining the soil—that is, extracting the nutrients out of the soil and putting them back in in an artificial way, rather than working with nature's grain and cultivating the soil in a more natural process.

The signs of decline are clearly visible and are highlighted in the report. Only around 10 to 15 per cent of our land is now high-quality soil, and around 40 per cent is at risk of compaction and 7 per cent is at risk of erosion as well. And there is a cost to all of this. Lower quality soil provides lower productivity and requires more inputs. So, that's a financial double-whammy for any business trying to make a living from the soil.

There is also an environmental cost, as soil with less drainage leads to more flooding, and lower quality soil holds less carbon, and so forth. Scientific evidence from universities and monitoring bodies shows a decline in key indicators, such as pH, carbon stock and organic matter. And this highlights the need to move from reacting to problems to preventing them proactively: maintaining and nurturing the soil, improving it and protecting it as a long-term asset, because it is an asset.

With that in mind, I welcome many of the recommendations made by the committee. The soil testing requirement in the sustainable farming scheme is certainly a positive step forward, but it is then important to have access to support to develop strategies in order to improve the soil as a result of that testing. It's good to see a recommendation in the report referring to the suggestions of the Nature Friendly Farming Network for improving the health of the soil and how some of that could possibly be incorporated into the sustainable farming scheme in the future.

I had the opportunity just last week in the Senedd to sponsor a network event in the Senedd, which highlighted the work that's already happening on farms in Wales. We heard from experts in the area about the science and the benefits that stem from improving soil quality, but we then heard from farmers about the countless benefits that they are already realising in terms of their farm businesses by adopting some of these approaches. Those were very inspiring examples that showed that cheaper methods that were more beneficial to the environment were available, which could then increase production at a lower cost.

BionerG provides a modular system of pyrolysis, which makes biochar production a viable opportunity for smallholder farmers and communities, wherever they're located. You take forestry waste and turn it into a form of charcoal; in other words, you convert biomass into a stable form of carbon. In fact, approximately 70 per cent of biochar's composition is carbon. So, by adding biochar to soil, carbon is locked away in a stable form, reducing greenhouse gases and helping mitigate climate change.

The reason I'm telling you this in this particular debate, of course, is because biochar is primarily used to improve soil health. Its porous structure enhances soil aeration. It increases water retention and improves nutrient availability, which can lead to increased agricultural productivity, which is exactly, of course, what we're discussing here today. But BionerG goes further, by the way. Through its integrated digital platform, all the carbon removal is measured. It's validated and tokenised for transparent trading on global markets. So, not only does it improve the soil and increase productivity, it opens up a carbon trading income stream for those farmers, foresters and communities as well.

This report shows us the way, and if we succeed in improving soil health permanently, that'll bring benefits to farmers, to the economy, to the environment and the viability of our rural communities. Thank you.

Firstly, can I thank the Chair and all witnesses who gave evidence to the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee into this report, 'Digging the dirt: Improving Wales' soil health'? As a farmer's son, I appreciate it, although on a clifftop in north Pembrokeshire there's very minimal depth of soil where we are. If we could make money out of rocks, we'd be doing very, very well. But we have soil, and what we have got we try as best as we can to make use of that soil, and look after it, making sure that it's there not just for us to benefit, but for the next generation on as well.

We've heard quite rightly from the Chair and from Llyr Gruffydd the importance of good quality soil, and how sometimes that maybe hasn't been at the forefront of the discussion when talking about farm sustainability, when talking about productivity and when talking about the ability of Welsh agriculture to continue to be on the journey to being the very best in terms of traceability, sustainability and quality of produce as well.

There's something I found quite interesting in terms of this report is. Last week, I was up in Aberystwyth at the IBERS department at Aberystwyth University for a CARAS conference, where I heard three farmers speaking: Aled Rees from Whitland, Charles George from Pembrokeshire and Gwion Owen from north Wales. The title of the conference was 'Will regenerative farming feed the nation?' One of the first things that they found was that there's no set definition for 'regenerative farming'. But the takeaway from all three of their presentations was that each one of them, in very different farming systems, all mentioned the importance of soil health—be that in dairy, beef, sheep, arable. And one quote that stuck with me, from one of the panellists was, 'I cared about what was happening above ground. Now I care more about what's happening below ground.' That I think just goes to show the importance of understanding, in terms of your farm management, how vital good-quality soil is to the productivity and overall health of your farm. Another panellist was Simon Thelwell from Harper Adams, and there was a question put to him about where is Wales in comparison to other countries, not just in the United Kingdom, but across Europe as well, in terms of our wider 'sustainability' within agriculture, soil health included. It's difficult to compare because benchmarking is few and far between. We know that with carbon calculators. There are so many out there available that one gives you a very different answer to another, and some sort of streamlining around this would be very welcome. And we also know from previous freedom of information requests that have been raised in the place that we in Wales don't know the carbon currently sequestered in Welsh soil. So, when looking at moving forward and understanding the value of our soil, in terms of carbon sequestration, we should have a good knowledge of where we currently are so that we can measure what benefits are being undertaken, be they through the sustainable farming scheme, be they through alternative measures. There are a lot of producers at the moment—First Milk, for example, in Pembrokeshire—doing a lot around regenerative farming themselves. Again, I come back to the point that there's no set definition on 'regenerative', but trying to get productivity up without exploiting the natural resources that exist. And that leads well into the recommendation around soil testing and ensuring that we do have the correct skills to undertake this, at pace, across Wales—the SFS is an opportunity for this—and knowing that we need to have that good knowledge of what exists.

I welcome the report and the work of the committee. Thank you, Chair. Healthy soil is not just dirt beneath our feet, it's a living ecosystem. It regulates water flows, sustains plant and animal life, sequesters carbon and filters pollutants. When soil is healthy, it quietly supports everything that we depend on. When it's not, the consequences are visible and costly. Unhealthy soil becomes eroded, washing into rivers, onto highways and blocking gullies. During monsoon rainfall, compacted earth cannot absorb water, so it just simply runs off, contributing directly to flooding.

I found the evidence given by Professor Bridget Emmett particularly powerful. She explained that every time soil runs off our fields and into our rivers, we are losing hundreds of years of nature's work in a single event. Professor Emmett went on to remind us that around 60 per cent of global biodiversity is thought to live in our soils. Just think about that. Yet, in many of our biodiversity strategies, soil biodiversity is barely mentioned in them. Many of the most commonly used antibiotics have been derived from soil micro-organisms, so protecting soil is therefore essential not only for our food system and farming industry, but for human life itself. If we fail to take measures to protect soil health, irreversible degradation can occur, and that's why I welcome the inclusion of soil testing in the sustainable farming scheme, and I strongly believe that the data and learning gained should be shared. With approximately 90 per cent of our land being farm land, how that land is managed matters enormously. We must engage and inform farmers about soil testing, including those not currently part of the scheme. I think farming unions could play a vital role in supporting that outreach work.

The continual use of fertilisers to grow better grass crops can exhaust soil over time as well, and practices such as reducing tillage, rotating crops and improving organic matter do make a real difference. The importance of hedges and edges and wider field margins should not be underestimated. And those are part of the sustainable farming scheme as well. I recall attending a briefing where it was explained how much healthier soil is in those margins, better at holding moisture, richer in ecosystems, and supporting biodiversity both above and below ground.

Beyond farm land, wildflower meadows, peatlands, our road verges, amenity grassland, and community spaces such as allotments and orchards are also crucial. I'm pleased that the Welsh Government has made funding available through Nature Networks and the Local Places for Nature grants to support this work, engaging with people as well in an education system so that they connect with nature and have a better understanding.

I want to thank the Chair and the committee for their final report and for highlighting the very real issue of Wales's soil health. Well-managed and high-quality soil is vital for our food production, carbon capture and biodiversity, and it must be protected. I note that the Welsh Government agrees. However, while the report focuses on farm land, I wish to draw attention to the importance of soil health across other areas of arable land.

Wales is pursuing ambitious climate change targets, with solar power playing a vital role. However, recent evidence, including the Welsh Government's commissioned report on the impact of the solar photovoltaic sites on agricultural soils makes clear that we must pay much more attention to how land is managed where solar farms are built.

Under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, soil is rightly recognised as a natural resource. The Bill itself places a duty on local authorities to pursue the sustainable management of natural resources, and broadly requires the decision makers to prevent environmental damage and maintain ecosystem resilience, yet the evidence shows a gap between the principles and practice.

Currently, legislation and planning frameworks do not explicitly address the soil risks posed by the heavy machinery used during construction, routine maintenance and eventual decommissioning of solar sites. We know that soil compaction is a significant concern, particularly on high-quality agricultural land. Reports suggest a 10 tonne axle load can compact soil to 50 cm, causing persistent damage that impairs structure, water infiltration, biodiversity and long-term productivity. In some cases, it is irreversible. While mitigation is possible through careful designs, restricted vehicle movements, soil management plans and monitoring, these measures are not consistently required or enforced, creating a policy blind spot. Therefore, the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill offers an opportunity to tackle this issue. I urge the environmental principles be strengthened by explicitly recognising soil compaction risks and introducing clearer land-management duties for renewable energy developments. If we are serious about sustainability, rather than pursuing targets, our renewable transition must protect the soil beneath our solar panels, not quietly degrade it. Diolch yn fawr.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply—Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to this report and to emphasise the importance of soil for life and well-being in Wales.

I really enjoyed the contributions from all Members here in this debate, and it's great to have soil being debated and being the subject of a committee's report as well. From a Welsh Government perspective, we're absolutely committed to a bright and sustainable future for Welsh agriculture and the role that soil will play in this: that foundational role, underpinning farming—good soil underpinning farming—and forestry and biodiversity and water management and decarbonisation as well. Soil is pivotal to all of these.

I just want to begin by expressing my thanks to the Chair and also the other members of the committee and other Members who have contributed today to this thoughtful and wide-ranging inquiry into soil health and agriculture, and for the recommendations. And just to say, when we sometimes disagree, it's not because we're disagreeing for the sake of it; we do try to put forward a rational reason why we've disagreed on one. And when we agree in principle, it's because sometimes we're doing stuff in that space, and I'll explain that now. My thanks to those who also took the time to give evidence as well and perspectives for the committee to assess.

Let me turn to the detail of the report. In the opening line of the report, the committee is right to point out that the critical role of healthy soil in promoting sustainability is often overlooked. It's not often enough debated here, I have to say, as well. Soil, of course, is everywhere. It's hidden beneath our feet, it's out of sight and it's diverse in nature, and it's often very under-appreciated. So, Welsh Government shares the committee's commitment to ensuring that we are proactive when enhancing and restoring and protecting our existing resource of soil—not having it running off into the rivers, not having it degraded or compacted as well.

So, I've carefully considered every recommendation and the context of the evidence received by the committee, but also the work we've been doing with ERAMMP—the environment and rural affairs monitoring and modelling programme—and the soil policy evidence programme. So, let me start by addressing the single recommendation that we're not able to agree with.

So, recommendation 3, on the matter of developing a framework to support planning officers making decisions on applications for use of best and most versatile agricultural land—we believe the existing planning framework provides a robust structure to balance the various land-use considerations and Government priorities. So, in effect, what the planning system does is it seeks that 'worst land first' policy approach, to use poorer quality agricultural land when an alternative use is proposed, in preference to the best and most versatile agricultural land. As has been pointed out, Llywydd, the area of best and most versatile land represents in the region of 10 per cent to 15 per cent of Wales. But it is worth pointing out that the best and most versatile land classification on its own does not mean that that's a ban on the use of that land. The planning system cannot do that. It does, however, set a very high bar. So, each case must be taken on its merits, balancing agricultural interest against other considerations.

Thank you, Minister, for taking the intervention. It is a real concern, this loss of quality agricultural land. I can take you to the Vale of Glamorgan now and take you to five sites that were growing wheat and potatoes that are either under construction or have sites on them with solar developments, and that renewables aspect is the battering ram that knocks down the door. So, how do your officials work with the Minister for the economy, where she has planning responsibility, to make sure that this land is protected, rather than, obviously, your department saying it should be protected and it's not carried out in the planning system?

As you know, this falls within the planning policy and the planning decisions of the Planning Inspectorate. However, we make representations, and where we consider that there are good reasons to oppose the development of the land, those are put forward in every single case there. But it's the planning process that actually balances up the final decisions on it.

Now, just to turn to the area where we agree, actually, with the majority of the committee's report, Llywydd. Amongst the committee's recommendations, we've got several accepted directly, either in full or in principle. These include recommendations related to soil testing, monitoring, knowledge exchange, agricultural land classification data, scheme rules, regulation and carbon markets. A point that's been well made, by the way—in the sustainable farming scheme, soil testing is, of course, now a part of it, in the universal layer, but there are also the opportunities for farmers then to go further with the optional layer as well. I think that goes very much in line with the grain of the committee's report.

So, Welsh Government is very committed to working with the farming and the environmental sectors to implement and build on these recommendations in a way that reflects the evolving needs and uses of our soils, whilst maintaining flexibility of approach, given their diverse nature. It's not one type of soil in Wales and one application agriculturally; it's very diverse. But this collaborative position demonstrates our shared intention to keep soils as a central focus here in Wales.

Now, our agreement in principle reflects our support for the direction of travel, even where the precise mechanisms or the timing may require some further consideration and discussion. So, for example, we welcome recommendations relating to how suggestions from the agricultural sector for improving soil health could be incorporated into future iterations of the sustainable farming scheme. Indeed, work is already under way to scope out the future SFS soil offer as part of the—yes, we're already doing this—SFS phase 2 development programme. The work never stops. So, we're committed to working with stakeholders, through the ministerial round-table and the officials' group, to develop this offer. Now, as part of this work, we'll be looking at actions in the round, including how they relate to scheme rules, scheme outcomes, reporting, targeting, data requirements and knowledge transfer support.

We also welcome, by the way, the committee's recognition of Wales as a leader in soil testing and its acknowledgement of the need to review monitoring requirements, including carbon at depth, soil biodiversity, and greater clarity around soil health metrics, as we work to refine and develop our sustainable land management indicators.

The committee Chair to reply. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's always pleasing, when you have a committee report, that there are Members who aren't members of the committee contributing, and I thank Carolyn and Altaf for their contributions to this debate this afternoon, and also the Minister, in his closing remarks, highlighting the importance of soil. I had some people make a quip, 'What on earth is the economy committee doing doing a report on soil health?' If you actually had a committee looking at the importance of fuel, energy, people say that's really important work for this Senedd to undertake. Soil is the nucleus of the food we eat and the biodiversity that Carolyn talked about. Sixty per cent of biodiversity is dependent on good, healthy soil for its creation. And also some antibiotics are derived from, obviously, the soil that those micro-organisms live in that are the basis of the antibiotics.

So, it is vital that we understand the pressures that are on our natural environment and the soil that underpins that environment. That's why the committee spent so much time looking at the planning system in particular, because of the pressures on demand for land that wouldn't be traditionally considered part of the countryside. So, it is disappointing that the Minister wasn't able to accept that particular recommendation. I heard the arguments he made, and in particular how his officials, obviously, keep it under constant review. But obviously there needs to be a joined-up approach with the Minister for planning to make sure that the safeguards that are put in place—. And I see the Member for Ynys Môn is here. Obviously, the solar development in Ynys Môn is being built on some prime agricultural land, and so there is a real deficiency in those safeguards. As I said to the Minister, I could take him to the Vale of Glamorgan now and take him to five sites that, basically, were growing wheat and potatoes that are now hosting solar farms, or have planning for solar farms. So, there is a deficiency there. It's there for us to see, and we need to try and close that off so that we strike the right balance.

Llyr, in his contribution to the debate this afternoon, said that this report shows us the way. I think you could almost end on that as such, then, because if you have an endorsement of such a report from a committee perspective your work has been productive. That's why I was so pleased that, on other recommendations, the Minister did acknowledge the importance of those recommendations, and did accept them.

Sam touched on the quality of the land, that only 10 per cent to 15 per cent in Wales is quality agricultural land. That really does show that we have to have these protections in place, because we haven't got an abundance of it, and it's not something that they're making any more of. So, we have to make sure that, from a Government perspective, those policies are in place to protect the land, so that we can feed the nation and enhance the environment.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed.

Item 7 is next, the Plaid Cymru debate on health board governance, and I call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to move the motion.

Thank you, Llywydd. Last week, I was walking the streets of Bala, knocking on people's doors and having conversations with people in the town, and one of those houses was Betsi Cadwaladr's own former home. One thinks of those formative years that created the young woman who went on to be a distinguished nurse, who saved many lives. In 2016, she was recognised, deservedly, as one of the 50 giants of Welsh history. But today, unfortunately, the name Betsi Cadwaladr has come to mean something very different for far too many people in Wales. It has become synonymous not with clinical excellence, but with a health system that has lost its way.

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset: Betsi Cadwaladr health board is not the root cause of the problems in the health service in Wales, nor do the problems end there. There is not one health board in Wales today in a position of business as usual. Indeed, in Betsi itself we have seen five different chief executives, four chairs, and senior officers come and go in an almost endless cycle over recent years. Elsewhere, throughout Wales, there are different people, different structures, different systems and different populations, but all of our health boards are now in some form of special measures or extended intervention. Despite all of those differences between the health boards and internally, one thing remains constant through all of this uncertainty and underperformance, namely the continued presence of the Welsh Labour Government at the helm.

These failures are at their most obvious and extreme in Betsi Cadwaladr health board. We can see that clearly in the facts. Almost half of the cancer patients in north Wales are unable to start treatment within the 62-day target, almost a quarter of patients in large emergency departments wait over 12 hours before being seen, and over 4,000 care pathways in Betsi have been waiting for two years for treatment, despite repeated pledges from the Government that these waits would have been removed long ago. But perhaps the most damning fact of all is this: Betsi Cadwaladr health board has spent over two thirds of its entire existence in special measures, the longest tenure for any health board in the history of the NHS. Once again, therefore, the Welsh Labour Government has succeeded in making history, but for all the wrong reasons.

And let's be absolutely clear: the staff are not to blame for this. Doctors, nurses, therapists and support workers and the managers at Betsi continue to give more than is reasonably possible day after day, in extremely challenging circumstances. What is heartbreaking is seeing their efforts being constantly undermined by chaos, a lack of direction and a failure to provide firm leadership, from the appalling failures of mental health services in Tawel Fan to the Ockenden report, which identified a culture of corporate abuse, to the shameful political decision to take Betsi out of special measures, contrary to the clear advice provided by the auditor general and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, only to see the board revert to special measures just over two years later, and, more recently, the fact that the health board has, effectively, been placed in a tier of intervention that goes far beyond special measures, never mind the complete shambles that we saw recently with serious gaps in the data on waiting lists—. I could go on.

Under this Government, what we have seen is a culture of learned helplessness being allowed to fester and grow. And is it any wonder? Because this is exactly what we get week in, week out in this Chamber from this Government. Instead of demanding better, believing that better can be delivered by Wales in Wales, what we see a culture where we are told that we can’t do it ourselves and we depend on others to do things for us. In Betsi Cadwaladr this is embodied in the fact that there is a persistent tendency to outsource patients to England, be they urology, mental health, vascular or any other number of treatments and specialisms that have either been allowed to go from north Wales or have not been invested in to develop, or the ongoing practice to insource private providers, steadily draining investment away from local services instead of strengthening them. In the case of Betsi’s insourcing arrangements with ID Medical to reduce waiting lists, clinicians within the health board have been explicitly excluded from any role in delivering that work, contrary to the advice of the health ombudsman. This has resulted in unnecessary duplication, further delays to treatment, and, as acknowledged by the board’s own finance director, poor service delivery and poor value for money.

Would you take an intervention, Mabon?

Yes.

On that point of waiting times, and outsourcing to England, and using external and perhaps private companies in that sense, what we seem to have been finding in official responses from Government Ministers is those very facts missing in their responses. So, would you be calling for that accuracy from Ministers in their responses to make sure that we're in a picture of being fully accurate about the realities of the situation facing Betsi Cadwaladr?

Yes, I think that's a fair charge there. What we have in Wales is a lack of data, and we need improved data to understand what's going on, so that we have better policy and better outcome.

But referring to that insourcing, in this instance, ID Medical in Betsi Cadwaladr, who mandated this policy? The Welsh Government, as part of the planned care recovery plan. This Government can't wash its hands of these failures. The special measures have resulted in both directives and appointments from this Government. There are only so many people you can sack and point the finger of blame at before you run out of people to blame. A fish rots from its head, and this Government has headed the health board for the best part of 10 years.

But there is an alternative. In 2026, the people of north Wales will have the opportunity to choose real change. Plaid Cymru has already set out a bold and credible agenda to improve this culture of learnt helplessness. Last year, we published our report, 'The Welsh Health System: Accountability, Performance and Culture', born out of our deep frustration with the Welsh Government’s repeated refusal to take responsibility for failures at Betsi Cadwaladr. It sets out clear proposals to strengthen governance and accountability in the NHS, reforming the special measures framework, introducing consistent standards of conduct for senior leaders and delivering genuine transparency in health data.

We have also brought forward a targeted plan to tackle Labour’s waiting lists, which are particularly acute in Betsi Cadwaladr, including new elective care hubs to accelerate treatment, create centres of excellence in long-neglected specialisms, and improve referral and triage systems. And we must rebuild that confidence in ourselves again and invest in growing our own to give us that ability to develop specialisms in the north.

For over 15 years, the people of north Wales have been forced to endure unacceptable standards of care, while staff have been let down time and again by this Government's failure. As one staff member so powerfully put it:

'There are a huge number of good people working for Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board who give above and beyond every day. They work in circumstances they often know to be inferior to what is provided in the other nations of the UK, but the bonds which keep them here are family, friends and the knowledge it is their healthcare they are trying to preserve.'

Let's ensure that their dedication has not been in vain, and let's make sure that, after 2026, a brighter, fairer and more competent chapter for patients across north Wales and Wales as a whole will materialise. Diolch.

I have selected the amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be de-selected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be de-selected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

I call on Peter Fox to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the amendment in the name of Paul Davies.

Can I thank Plaid Cymru for bringing forward this debate today? We all know that our healthcare system is on its knees. Every health board in the country is in some sort of special measures or intervention. A poor legacy of 27 years of Labour control. For far too long, successive Welsh Labour Governments have failed to get to grips with the scale of the crisis across the country, choosing instead often to play party politics that deflect from making the real changes that we all need to see. We know all Welsh health boards are in crisis, as I said, under intervention. From my experience, when organisations consistently fail, it points to a serious lack of leadership, a leadership issue, and often system failure, and the Government is key to that leadership.

When looking at Betsi Cadwaladr, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Welsh Government must accept and own up to the main failings at the health board and apologise to the people of north Wales for failing to address the shortcomings in healthcare. Not to do so demonstrates a continued denial of that situation. These failings at the health board are no secret and have frequently made the news. There have been considerable concerns surrounding the leadership, with ongoing instability in the executive team and gaps in the wider senior leadership structures, as well as overspending on the budget to the tune, I believe, of over £24 million between 2021 and 2024. And to make matters worse, the health board has had several different chief execs since 2015. Clearly, there is something fundamentally wrong with the running of the health board, and ultimately the buck stops at the Welsh Government, as it has ultimate responsibility for the performance management of our health system.

Dirprwy Lywydd, when the running of the health board is so flawed, it has very real consequences for the people of north Wales, who are sick and tired of having to put up with this. Last year's delayed health statistics are just one of the scandals at the health board. We have seen tragic incidents of a patient having an unnecessary amputation, another amputee needing to be carried to the toilet by his wife after being discharged without a care plan, and almost 1,700 mental health patients wrongly discharged from support services during the pandemic. Dirprwy Lywydd, if this isn't the definition of a crisis, I don't know what is. It's clear that the running of our Welsh health system cannot continue in this way.

The Welsh Conservatives have a plan to put things right. We need a Government willing to acknowledge that there is a health emergency, for it is only when—

Would you take an intervention?

Sorry. Yes, I would, James.

I'm just interested—. I was the shadow health Minister for over 12 months and I'm not quite sure what the health emergency actually meant in Welsh Conservative policy, so I'm just interested, since you've taken on the brief, whether you could explain what a health emergency actually is.

Yes, well, thank you very much. From a health emergency—. With any situation that has been ongoing for many years, if the leadership cadre don’t acknowledge the importance of that situation, you're never going to focus the resource and mindset to putting it right. Declaring that health emergency focuses every part of the system on the need to start putting its mind, its resources, its capacity and its best efforts to start driving the change we need to see. And that's why we're seeing already local councils declaring health emergencies, and more will do that, because it's resonating through to every citizen across Wales. So, when you have that solid focus from everybody who can put things right, as we did in COVID, then you know that you can start taking some steps to improvement. And that's what I believe a health emergency is and why it's so important.

We need a Government willing to accept, then, that there is a need for that health emergency; it is only then that we can begin to tackle the full extent of the problems at Betsi Cadwaladr and, indeed, across our whole health system. Regarding Betsi Cadwaladr, we need to see an independent inquiry into the failings at the health board to learn lessons and hold people to account for the utter failure of its management, as well as ensuring that significant improvements can be achieved and maintained. The Welsh Government must bring about a surge in bed capacity across Wales to ensure patient safety and improved access to emergency care. We must also see the urgent establishment of surgical hubs to clear the appalling waiting time backlog. And finally, we must protect and enhance the community hospital network in north Wales, including the delivery of the north Denbighshire community hospital and more minor injuries units.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the people of north Wales deserve better than what Labour have offered them when it comes to their healthcare, and this applies to all areas of Wales. Enough is enough. We need accountability and an improvement, and sadly, that doesn't seem likely under this Labour Government. Diolch.

I call on James Evans to move amendment 3, tabled in his own name.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the amendment tabled in my name.

Let us be clear about what we are debating today: Plaid Cymru's motion correctly identifies a health system in crisis, but it proposes solutions that fall short of the scale of the crisis. It focuses narrowly on one health board and asks us to endorse a party political report when what Wales needs is fundamental system-wide change.

The situation at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board is a national scandal. Spending more than two thirds of its existence in special measures is not just failure, it's institutional collapse, but we must not pretend that this is a problem confined to north Wales. This is not a localised issue, it is a systemic one that runs deep through the entire Welsh NHS, from the north coast to the heart of Cardiff Bay. The motion notes that every major health board in Wales has now been subject to some form targeted intervention, and let us translate that into plain English: the Welsh Government has had its hands on the wheel of every health board in Wales, and yet after years of intervention, escalation and special measures, patients are still waiting longer, staff are still under intolerable pressure, and standards remain unacceptably low.

That is why my amendment matters. It calls for a comprehensive review of governance, leadership and accountability across all NHS organisations in Wales. We do not need more targeted tinkering around the edges, we need to confront a culture that has normalised failure, hidden behind bureaucracy and punished transparency. And if Members want a live example of what is wrong with the Welsh NHS and governance in Wales, they need to look no further than Velindre University NHS Trust. In recent months, we've seen the sudden departure of its chief executive after barely a year in post and serious whistleblowing allegations, involving criminality and governance failures within the NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership, dismissed. So, let us ask the obvious question: how can this Senedd have confidence in NHS governance when a chief executive who raises concerns about wrongdoing appears to be pushed out? This is a system that treats whistleblowers as the problem, transparency as a threat and bureaucracy as a shield. This is not accountability; it is institutional self-protection.

Plaid Cymru asks us to implement the recommendations of its own report. Whilst I acknowledge the work that has gone into it, reforming the Welsh NHS cannot be reduced to a partisan homework exercise. What Wales needs is an independent, whole-system review, one that tackles silo cultures, the obsolete systems and the reality that, in 2026, parts of our NHS still rely on paper records and fax machines. That is totally inappropriate.

Thank you very much. You're outlining there what the benefits are to what a public inquiry would achieve, because those people who would give evidence would be swearing on oath for some of those failures, and then the recommendations of a public inquiry would be there to hold people's feet to the fire, and if they were not fulfilling those recommendations, then they would be indeed held accountable. That's why the Welsh Conservatives—. And when you were health spokesperson for the Welsh Conservatives, that's the policy that we were looking to achieve. We agree that this systematic failure needs to stop and individuals' feet need to be put to the fire, so that's the very reason that we've sworn to that policy.

Well, the reason is I've had my shackles released from me now, so I can say what I think a little bit more. Actually, a public inquiry would take years and years to come to a conclusion while patients and people were suffering, and we already know what the problems are in Betsi. We discuss them in this Chamber almost every single week in one form or another. I do not think a public inquiry is going to tell us anything more than we already know, other than to waste taxpayers' money.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I think the people of Wales are tired of being told that things are improving while they wait on trolleys in A&E departments in corridors. They're tired of Welsh Government press releases that talk up progress while lived experience tells a very different story, and they're tired of a Government that manages decline rather than delivering real changes for the people of Wales. If we're serious about restoring trust in the NHS, we must stop the excuses and end the culture of cover-up, including what we've seen currently across the NHS, and this is why I urge Members to support my amendment today.

This debate, of course, is about more than numbers on a piece of paper, it's about people, real people, a number of them living in pain, people who maybe cannot work because of that, and people who have certainly seen their lives put on hold because of a system that doesn't treat them the way that it should. We hear time and again about the shambles that the Labour Government is making of the task of running the NHS in Wales, but there is nowhere where the results of that mismanagement are more evident than in Betsi Cadwaladr health board, my local health board and the health board of the people of north Wales.

We heard major pledges last year that the longest waiting lists would be eliminated by the end of 2025. An ambitious pledge, a praiseworthy pledge, but it was just another pipe dream, of course. We haven't seen the change that we wanted to see, and certainly not the improvement that people wanted to see as well. And what is the situation today? Well, thousands are still waiting over two years for treatment, and that is a disgrace. Compared to England, the rate of the longest stays in Wales is around 2,400 per cent higher, clear evidence of years of underinvestment and poor planning. So, the question remains, doesn't it? Why is there such a gap between what is promised to us and what is delivered? Why are the residents of north Wales repeatedly left time and again with what feel like empty pledges? People are tired of hearing that things are on track; they want to see results.

A clear example of the problem for me is the development of the orthopaedic hub in Llandudno. This project has the potential to transform orthopaedic services in north Wales. We in Plaid Cymru have supported the idea of specialist treatment hubs for a long time, because in other places, we've seen them be a vital part of reducing waiting lists. But developments of this kind, of course, must take full account of the opinions of clinical experts. They are the ones who understand how to plan services that work in practice. Without their guidance, there is a risk of projects failing on the ground. Unfortunately, it appears that is what has happened in the case of Llandudno.

Having spoken to people close to this project, I'm not confident that clinical leaders had meaningful formal input in drawing up the original business case. Despite the concerns over staffing capacity, it appears that the board wasn't responsive enough to those concerns. So, I'd appreciate hearing from the Cabinet Secretary in his response to this debate if he has heard these concerns expressed and whether this is at the root of the delays in terms of opening the hub. As a result, the project has been delayed time and time again. Even when this hub will be opened, there are concerns there won't be enough staff to run it properly. This is a £30 million project, of course, but it's at risk of failure due to fundamental planning errors.

I am pleased that we have just passed a Welsh Labour budget that invests in our front-line services in local government and in health. The increased NHS funding delivered by the 1997-2010 Labour Government, through the NHS plan, alongside the success of the 18-week referral to treatment initiative, led to very significant reductions in NHS waiting times. However, stagnation in NHS funding since 2010 has resulted in those gains being lost.

If UK spending per person had matched the average across the EU14 during that decade, total UK spending would have been around £40 billion higher each year. We have increasing need, a growing elderly population, new medicines that need funding. Thanks to investment from the new UK Labour Government, waiting lists are now coming down. People regularly tell me about operations being brought forward, about pain-relief clinics, physiotherapy and national exercise referrals, schemes that are making a real difference to their lives. I know that more needs to be done, but there is positive movement, and I want to make sure that we give people hope as well, for those who are on waiting lists, that hopefully their appointment will be brought forward.

More intermediate care beds are being provided by the health board, working in partnership with the Welsh Government and local councils, such as the one in Marleyfield House. I'm looking forward to the new orthopaedic hub opening in Llandudno soon, as Llyr mentioned, and I was pleased to hear about the new 56-bed care facility that has recently opened in Flint. The recent planning permission for the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Rhyl is also very positive news and an important step forward. The plans include a minor injuries unit, which will relieve pressure on Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, as well as intermediate care beds, which offer step-up and step-down care. This flexible short-term care will help bridge gaps between health and social care and is extremely valuable. I was pleased to hear the Cabinet Secretary—[Interruption.] Not from him. No, thank you. I was pleased to hear the Cabinet Secretary for finance mention this morning investment in the Royal Alexandra Hospital in the upcoming budget, when he was talking about investment in north Wales. So, fingers crossed that that is actually happening and that we'll have an announcement soon.

Betsi is one of the largest employers in north Wales, employing around 19,000 people. Sometimes, I feel we need to stop talking the health board down, because it makes recruitment really difficult. I heard what Llyr said about the orthopaedic unit, and we need to make sure that we've got enough people who want to come and work in our beautiful north Wales. It's a lovely place to live, work, bring up your family. So, we need to talk it up.

The problems that we've heard about already today in the Betsi Cadwaladr health board are a microcosm, perhaps, of some challenges that are emerging across the country. All of our health boards are facing some form of targeted intervention. Unfortunately, standards have fallen in many areas, despite the hard work that front-line staff are doing.

In recent months, intervention has been intensified at the Aneurin Bevan health board due to a deteriorating financial situation and due to concerns about emergency care. The financial deficit of £18 million is of course a cause for concern. This has been flagged up, apparently, for some time. Looking at the minutes of the board meeting held in January, the health board still hasn't accepted a framework that sets out further metrics for improving the situation and reversing the escalation that has occurred in terms of intervention, even though the board has asked the Government for such guidance.

One of the other concerns raised was about emergency care at the health board. This is an area of particular concern for many of us. Over years, locally based services have disappeared, forcing more and more patients to travel longer distances to get to the care they need. [Interruption.] It's a shame that anyone would find this funny. People have to travel that longer distance. When the miners hospital closed in Caerphilly, it was not replaced by a general hospital, but a minor injuries unit at Ystrad Mynach. It was strange, because the road layout—even the road signs—originally implied that there would be an A&E at that hospital, but that never materialised. And now patients from across the Rhymney valley have to travel to the Grange in Cwmbran for emergency care. If you don't have access to a car, that can take hours on public transport.

Emergency services at the Grange regularly make headlines for all the wrong reasons. Patients are having to face unsafe corridor care, long waits for urgent treatment, and all the pain and anxiety that that entails. This is not the fault of front-line staff, but they, too, like patients, are suffering. An FOI we submitted recently exposed how badly the stresses and strains of the system are affecting the workforce. In 2025, 279,889 full-time equivalent days were lost in Aneurin Bevan due to staff sickness. That is the equivalent of 766 years of lost time. When it comes to fixing these problems, we know that radicalism isn't simply an option, but an obligation, and we are determined to rise to this challenge to restore the NHS to its rightful place as the pride of our nation.

Of course, everyone in this Chamber will want the situation to improve. I understand that. I recognise that. But when so many problems have emerged over such a long time and we continue to see the situation deteriorating, not improving, we have to find a way of giving hope to patients, but also to the front-line staff who work so hard to improve the lives of people when they need it most.

I'm pleased to be taking part in this debate this afternoon. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to argue for our amendments, the Welsh Conservative amendments, firstly seeking a mea culpa from the Welsh Government and an apology to my constituents. They know better than anyone the shortcomings of having a health board in crisis, with the worst waiting times in the UK. The health board has been in and out of special measures and enhanced monitoring for the best part of 11 years, and the Welsh Government still haven't got to grips with the problems plaguing it.

The Welsh Conservatives have set out how we would fix these problems, starting with the declaration of a health emergency. Labour voted down our motion to do this last year. But local authorities in north Wales agree with us. Just two weeks ago, Conwy County Borough Council became the second local authority in north Wales to declare a health emergency, after Denbighshire County Council did so in November. And just to put some political reality into that, there's a high portion of Labour councillors who voted for that, and Denbighshire County Council is Labour run, so I would certainly advise the Cabinet Secretary that it's your own party making these sentiments, so it's quite telling in that regard. So, north Wales councillors can see on the ground that the health service is floundering and needs drastic action to fix it, but Labour politicians in Cardiff Bay are happy to turn a blind eye because of the optics of acknowledging that they are responsible for the problems in Betsi. They have failed to turn it around in three years since it was returned to special measures.

Bed capacity could have been alleviated years ago by the Welsh Government if they had built the new hospital on the Royal Alexandra site in Rhyl. But after more than 10 years of dragging their feet, we have a repackaged deal that is vastly scaled down from what residents were originally offered, and it hasn't even started construction yet. I heard the Member for North Wales boasting about this earlier on in her contribution, but with no guarantees that this would be delivered in 2026. Like I say, we haven't even had a spade in the ground yet, and my constituents are quite rightly frustrated. There's quite a strong possibility, while Labour's vote share dropped by 48.5 per cent in Leeswood, in Flintshire, in a seat that you previously held—[Interruption.] So, I would be highlighting those political realities, and I'm very much looking forward to the fate that your party will have, on this track record, in Denbighshire in the next few months. 'Bring it on', I say.

[Inaudible.]

I'll take a point of order at the end of the debate, okay? Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Of the 12 and a half years I've been the representative for Ynys Môn here, the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has been in some kind of special measures in eight and a half of those years. And it's worth adding that only for political or electoral reasons was it not in special measures for even longer than that.

As many have already mentioned, and as I experience through the casework that my office continues to receive regularly, there's a real impact on people, on families, when health services underperform. People, yes, have to wait too long for treatment, particularly in certain areas of expertise. The loss of specialist services means more travel for treatment. The lack of availability of services in rural areas creates particular problems in those areas. And we see the impact of delays in making decisions, in making key investments, such as the health hub in Holyhead, something that we really need, but where a full business case is still not in place, over six years since a crisis in primary care in the town emerged.

But beyond that, I fear that the problems that exist in Betsi Cadwaladr go deeper than just the quality of service provided on a day-to-day basis. It feels to me that it's an issue of confidence or, to be more accurate, a lack of confidence among patients and among staff at all levels of the organisation that things will change for the better under the leadership of the current Government.

I have great respect for those staff, and I know that that's true on all levels. I know that the senior management are desperate to see a corner turned. But the truth of the matter is that Labour has had almost 27 years to try and create the circumstances whereby quality, stable and sustainable services can be provided in north Wales, and they have failed, and the provision has been in decline over that period.

But as today's motion notes, there is a way forward that I believe would provide hope of a better future for the health board, an opportunity to truly turn the corner. Of course, what we're seeking, through that, are better outcomes for patients and staff in the shorter and longer term. Plaid Cymru's idea of creating surgical hubs would actually address the issue of waiting times that have grown so much in north Wales over the years. Our plans to establish a national telemedicine programme would mean that people in rural communities wouldn't miss out on the best care just because of where they happen to live. The way that we will implement recommendations in our own report on the Welsh health system will lead to improvement in governance, accountability and partnership working across health boards in the longer term. But more than anything, perhaps, a Plaid Cymru Government would take seriously the need for political leadership in holding our health boards to account—not evading challenges and putting our heads in the stand, but taking real action when problems arise, not kicking them into the long grass, as has happened far too often.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to start by recognising the commitment of everyone who works in health and care in north Wales. They do so under huge pressures, and their work is deserving of our thanks. It is important that we constructively and jointly support the efforts of the thousands of staff as they continue to make improvements to services across Wales's largest health board.

It is only right that we recognise the journey that the health board is on. We do recognise and celebrate the improvements, and we certainly have identified where more work is needed, and we are open and transparent about the challenges that remain. Contrary to many of the contributions this afternoon, the institution has come a long way, but progress in some areas is mixed, and in other areas significant and important challenges remain.

Three years ago, Audit Wales called for remedial action to deal with what was described as 'dysfunctional board dynamics'. Those steps have been taken. By now, there is a stable board in place, and the executive team has been further strengthened with a chief operating officer, an executive medical officer and a new workforce director. Three years ago, there was a lack of co-ordinated corporate governance processes and decision making. The last structural assessment by Audit Wales did recognise the stronger corporate systems of assurances, risk and performance frameworks and more co-ordinated scrutiny by the board.

Financial governance has improved by strengthening internal governance and improved audit procedures. The board published a response on the lessons learnt from the historic accounting issues in July of last year. Delivering a true and fair unqualified audit opinion for the last two years is a signal of significant improvement.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the board delivered an improved in-year financial deficit trajectory last year and showed further ambition by submitting a financially balanced plan for this year. Disappointingly, it has been unable to deliver this, and is now forecasting a £17.4 million deficit this year. Digital services are improving, but the governance required to deliver the new laboratory information management system, Digital Maternity Cymru, and Welsh intensive care systems remains fragile.

As we heard in the debate, data quality also needs continued focus. The suspension of referral-to-treatment waiting list statistics for the health board in November because of concerns about their integrity of course underscores this point. But by now, as all Members know, all concerns about the waiting times data have been rectified and reporting resumed last month. The final report from the external review team will be published next month, and I will also publish the third annual report on special measures progress next month.

Dirprwy Lywydd, there has been progress on access to planned care over the last three years. Long waits have fallen by 60 per cent and two-year waits are down 81 per cent for orthopaedic treatment, down 54 per cent for general surgery and 65 per cent for ear, nose and throat, as a result of better theatre productivity and outsourcing. One-year waits for an out-patient appointment have fallen by almost 60 per cent over the last 12 months to just over 12,000 and more than 45,000 additional weekend appointments have been offered since September last year, with more than 36,000 people seen. But people are still waiting too long to be seen for many services, especially for cancer treatment and for urgent and emergency care. The health board has to do better.

Three years ago, there were significant quality concerns, but improvements have been made here too through the introduction of the new integrated concerns policy. Patient safety has improved through better incident handling, compliance with the duty of candour and strengthened mortality review processes. The number of prevention of future deaths notices issued has fallen from 22 in 2023 to five in 2025. Still too many, of course, but an improvement. Clinical services show encouraging signs of improvement in maternity, diabetes and renal care. But sustained improvement in outcomes will require continued investment, strengthened workforce models and more consistent clinical leadership. Significant challenges remain in stroke, urology, cancer and vascular services. Leadership and management of mental health services has been strengthened through senior appointments and considerable progress has been made in response to the findings of the review undertaken by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The board has become more open and transparent.

I call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to respond to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I thank everyone who has taken part in this important debate on health provision and governance in the health board that we have in north Wales.

Peter was quite right in pointing out that leadership, and the leadership of Government specifically, is key. It's something we've heard time and time again. And there's no point just pointing the finger of blame at individuals in any one health board if that leadership doesn't come directly from Government. And that's what we need to see. I'm glad to hear that the Conservatives support much of what we have said around surgical hubs, for instance.

There was a little discussion, a little spat, going on between former Conservative Member James Evans and various Conservative Members on the health emergency. Of course, this Government has declared a housing emergency, they have declared a nature emergency, they've declared a climate emergency and other emergencies. There is certainly a health emergency when it comes to issues in north Wales, which is why we're discussing this.

Now, James's contribution I think was interesting. Because on the one hand, James, you said that this motion is specifically about Betsi Cadwaladr, then you went on to say that the motion talks about every other health board. So, it can't be one or the other, it is actually both. [Interruption.] Yes, James.

[Inaudible.]—I've got my speech in front of me and I'm quite happy to share it with you after.

That's fine, and I'll check the Record, because these are contemporaneous notes that I've taken. I'm pretty clear that's what you said. But nevertheless, I would suggest that you read Plaid Cymru's report, which does talk about the governance across the whole of the NHS in Wales, which is why we need to see system change here when it comes to improving outcomes.

And Llyr is perfectly right: it was shocking to hear that statistic that Llyr gave us, which reminds us of the scale of the challenge facing us, that so many more people are on waiting lists in Wales, specifically in Betsi Cadwaladr, than is the case over the border in England—and England is so much bigger than us, of course—once again showing the need to tackle this urgently.

Carolyn, I think, made an important contribution, because, Carolyn, I think you're right: when you talked about I think it was your friend, or someone you knew, who spoke to you about improvement or suggestions for improvement, that's what we've spoken about in our report. We're talking about effective commissioning, clear targets, better sharing of data and information. That's exactly what we need to do. That's what we've put forward. That's what we're discussing today. So, I hope you'll consider supporting the motion without any amendments, as it stands.

At the same time, we've touched on the problems across Wales, and Delyth referenced those specifically in Aneurin Bevan and the fact that the Welsh Government still haven't provided Aneurin Bevan with the framework necessary in order for them to carry out the steps that they need to do to answer the financial gaps that they have.

Gareth, I appreciate the contribution and the passion that you put into your contribution, but I think—

Mabon. Mabon, one second. There are too many conversations going on around the Chamber, and I would hope you'd all be listening to Mabon's contribution as he closes the debate. Mabon.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. And I would say, with your contribution, Gareth, that they were really brave words you said there about bringing it on for a political fight, because I'm not convinced that the Conservatives are in a position to win any political fights coming forward in the near future, at least.

[Inaudible.]—you were on Denbighshire County Council yourself, like I was before becoming an MS; you know full well the problems in north Denbighshire. The point that I'm getting at in that regard is that actions speak for themselves in that regard. Regardless of the performance of the Welsh Conservatives, this is a fundamental failure of the Labour Party, and that's more the point that I'm trying to make, in that sense, anyway.

Diolch. I appreciate that, but that speaks to the fact that local authorities are having to deal with a lot of the problems arising from the problems that we have in the health service, because they can't find the care packages required for people leaving hospitals because of a lack of co-operation between some of the local authorities and health boards. I think that's the point you were speaking to, and I accept that.

And at the same time, thank you, Rhun. I think Rhun made the important point that we need to remind ourselves of all the time here, that we have a workforce that works hard and under very difficult circumstances, and that is a workforce that is porters and doctors and managers and senior managers, who are all trying to work in very difficult circumstances. The Cabinet Secretary did make that point, and I do accept and recognise that situation, that we have to thank those people for that work, but they shouldn't be in that difficult situation of having to work in—as the Cabinet Secretary said—difficult circumstances.

We heard the Cabinet Secretary talking about some of the statistics about certain improvements, and any improvement is to be welcomed. But, nevertheless, we have targets that are missed time and time again when it comes to Betsi Cadwaladr, and that results in poorer patient outcomes. At the end of the day, this is what we have to keep in mind: that we have patients, we have people, we have loved ones—I live in that health board myself—at the root of all of this and we need to see improved outcomes for their sake.

If we, therefore, want to see plans to strengthen accountability, want to strengthen the voice of the patients, want to improve standards, introduce treatment hubs across the area and make better use of the workforce, then we have to support the motion before us today in order to give this issue the necessary urgency. Thank you.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. I will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.

You wished to make a point of order, Carolyn.

Yes, please. I haven't checked the record fully, but I believe the Member referred to a seat that was lost in Leeswood that I previously held. I did not hold that seat before; I was a councillor for Treuddyn. I don't know what that has to do with the debate, and personal attacks should not be part of debate. I am still awaiting an apology from his previous attack, which had to be corrected on the public record. Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Can I respond to the point of order?

I've got to judge the point of order first, Gareth.

You've made your point. I'm not clear it's a point of order, but I will need to check the record, obviously, as to what he said. We're not sure of that. I had a look online; it's not up yet. So, we need to check the record, okay. So, we'll come back to you on that.

That brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting.

The vote this evening will be on item 7, the Plaid Cymru debate. And I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. If the motion is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour, 11, no abstentions, 34 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, no abstentions and 23 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, in the name of Paul Davies. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, two abstentions and 33 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of James Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions and 32 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

As the Senedd has not agreed the motion without amendment, and has not agreed the amendments tabled to the motion, the motion is therefore not agreed. And that concludes voting for this evening.

Item 9, the short debate, is postponed until 11 February.

So that brings today's proceedings to a close.